Extreme or objectionable views. Express or suppress?

[taxman]

Well, then I don't see how you can misunderstand what I've posted.

Just so we're clear ....

–verb

1.to put (thought) into words; utter or state: to express an idea clearly.

2.to show, manifest, or reveal

3.to set forth the opinions, feelings, etc., of (oneself), as in speaking, writing, or painting

–adjective

1.clearly indicated; distinctly stated; definite; explicit; plain:

Capiche?

 

Because in one breath you say that people should be able to express their views but in the next you say they should expect sanction for expressing them. That seems contradictory.

[truconstruct]

Do you believe that people should have the right to express their views, opinions and beliefs no matter how objectionable?

 

No matter how objectionable to whom? Who decides what is an objectionable view? One mans objectionable view may well be another mans common sense approach. Who decides which one is wrong? Who decides which one is objectionable?

 

I think that's what the OP is pointng out, or at least one point he's making.

 

Wiledcat is expressing the opposing view that cencorship is right but has never defined who decided where the 'line' he talks about is draw.

[Tony]

So you think that it should not be illegal to set up a website advocating the view that having sex with babies is good for them?

 

Or that running full page adverts expressing nasty untrue views about you in every newspaper should not be illegal?

 

You already conceded some views should be illegal did you not?

 

"If those views are abhorrent, taboo or illegal, they have to expect the condemnation, ostracism or punishment that goes along with that expression."

 

Making something illegal is to suppress it.

 

But having a view is not illegal. Executing a deed, or very occasionally expressing a view is what might be illegal.

 

Having a view is not illegal unless I missed the day when New Labour introduced Thought Crime onto the Statute.

[Wildcat]

But having a view is not illegal. Executing a deed, or very occasionally expressing a view is what might be illegal.

 

Having a view is not illegal unless I missed the day when New Labour introduced Thought Crime onto the Statute.

 

The OP is about expressing a view, not simply having one.

 

You know where you put in the title:

 

"Extreme or objectionable views. Express or suppress?"

 

And in the OP itself:

 

Do you believe that people should have the right to express their views, opinions and beliefs no matter how objectionable?

 

Do some people need protecting from their views, or do some folk maybe need protecting from themselves?

 

Are some things so taboo that they should be left unsaid - even if people think it?

 

It sort of makes that clear doesn't it?

[truconstruct]

But having a view is not illegal. Executing a deed, or very occasionally expressing a view is what might be illegal.

 

Having a view is not illegal unless I missed the day when New Labour introduced Thought Crime onto the Statute.

 

I think the problem that's lurking under the surface here is the fact that 'some people' would indeed like to introduce the 'thought crime' onto the statute book.

[Wildcat]

I think the problem that's lurking under the surface here is the fact that 'some people' would indeed like to introduce the 'thought crime' onto the statute book.

 

I am not sure who they are because, I would oppose thoughts being crimes, just the same as every other contributor to the thread so far. It is not like the thread is even about that.

[truconstruct]

I am not sure who they are because, I would oppose thoughts being crimes, just the same as every other contributor to the thread so far. It is not like the thread is even about that.

 

Isn't it, sorry I've been getting the impression it was.

 

So tell me, where would you draw this theoretical line of yours as to what view you would alow and what view you wouldn't?

 

Then tell me the structure you would set up to enforce this theory.

[rubydazzler]

Because in one breath you say that people should be able to express their views but in the next you say they should expect sanction for expressing them. That seems contradictory.

I'm probably carrying vibes over from another thread.

 

If a view is already carrying a sanction of whatever type, people should still be free to express it provided they're fully cognisant that they have to accept the consequences of so doing.

 

There are some people who would prefer that others are not free to express any views that they find difficult to swallow or accept.

[Wildcat]

Wiledcat is expressing the opposing view that cencorship is right but has never defined who decided where the 'line' he talks about is draw.

 

I have given an explanation of how the line can be determined. It comes from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and is basically the harm principle. Freedom of speech is an important right that should not be relinquished easily however, where on balance there is more harm from allowing a view to be expressed than not, a consequentialist balancing act that includes a consideration of the fact allowing freedom of speech is a good for society as a principle. Then when that balance tips in favour of harm then society thoguh its democratic institutions should be empowered and not hindered in legislating and enforcing restrictions proportionately for the good of society.

[Wildcat]

Isn't it, sorry I've been getting the impression it was.

 

So tell me, where would you draw this theoretical line of yours as to what view you would alow and what view you wouldn't?

 

Then tell me the structure you would set up to enforce this theory.

 

See above for explanation of the principles that I think apply.

 

An application of those principles to illustrate would be the one I have used throughout. A website advocating the view that raping a child is good for the victim, does no good for society. The website should be taken down and the website owner discouraged from expressing that view publically again through sanctions. Furthermore because the example is so extreme, I would also suggest a psychological assessment to further inform what sanctions\help the individual requires.