Extreme or objectionable views. Express or suppress?

[truconstruct]

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.

 

 

No, that's simply not good enough, you NEED to say WHO decides, and WHAT mechanisums you would use to enforce this 'view of yours'.

[Tony]

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

 

That's right. You'll note that the OP does not express a view, it poses a question. Post 6 sets out my view as follows;

 

I happen to agree with you because I believe that no view is too abhorrent to be expressed. We all have opinions so it's silly to pretend that some opinions don't exist.

 

It is not always appropriate to say some things at some times in some places but on the whole I am sure that sunlight is the best disinfectant to even the most obnoxious opinions.

That sort of makes it clear doesn't it?

[Photofit Ed]

The OP has now had 42 posts and nobody has even begun to touch on the fact that what constitutes an objectionable view differs from one person to the next. All views which do not incite violence or hatred must and should be allowed to be expressed.

[truconstruct]

A website advocating the view that raping a child is good for the victim, does no good for society.

 

Now you are stating that anyone expressing a view that 'does no good' should be censored, you've just moved the goal posts.

 

I think you don't actualy know or realise what you are posting, you are attempting to hold some political line without knowing what it is.

[Wildcat]

That's right. You'll note that the OP does not express a view, it poses a question. Post 6 sets out my view as follows;

 

 

That sort of makes it clear doesn't it?

 

Sort of.

 

So under what circumstances do you think expressing a view inappropriate? and do you think those situations require sanctions?

[Tony]

The OP has now had 42 posts and nobody has even begun to touch on the fact that what constitutes an objectionable view differs from one person to the next. All views which do not incite violence or hatred must and should be allowed to be expressed.

 

I would generally agree with you there but I would go further and say that those views which do incite hatred or violence should be expressed with my previous caveats. By doing so we learn where our societal an personal boundary lies which then allows us to formulate a position and any sanction that we see fit.

 

I do not consider total censorship to be a sanction though.

[Wildcat]

Now you are stating that anyone expressing a view that 'does no good' should be censored, you've just moved the goal posts.

 

I think you don't actualy know or realise what you are posting, you are attempting to hold some political line without knowing what it is.

 

How have I moved the goal posts?

 

You asked for my views and I have given them consistent with everything else I have said, (I think).

[truconstruct]

How have I moved the goal posts?

 

You asked for my views and I have given them consistent with everything else I have said, (I think).

 

YOU stated that 'views that cause harm' should be cencored, now you say weiws that 'do no good' shoud be cencored.

 

Which is it to be?

[Wildcat]

No, that's simply not good enough, you NEED to say WHO decides, and WHAT mechanisums you would use to enforce this 'view of yours'.

 

Ultimately in a democracy and being a democrat. It is our democratic institutions that determine our laws.

 

In terms of the individual returning to Ruby's example of homosexuality as illustrative, if as an individual I disagree with those laws morally as they are at the time then if I think it beneficial to defy those laws in some way to change them then it follows that it is moral and right to do so. Obviously such an assessment is individual and personal and therefore to an extent subjective. It is however objective to the extent that any assessment of consequences can be.

[Wildcat]

YOU stated that 'views that cause harm' should be cencored, now you say weiws that 'do no good' shoud be cencored.

 

Which is it to be?

 

harm... using 'do no good' was me being sloppy. My apologies.