Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 8th, 2017, 03:37 PM   #11
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouLoveMeYouKnowIt View Post
Promoting Nazism, and not the Golden Dawn "I am not a Nazi (but I really am deep down inside)" kind of Nazi. But real Nazis who want ethnic cleansing. Assume that. Is that allowed?
The freedom of thought and self organization is far more different from the over acts involving them.

Anyone can say I love Nazism and likes only to be with white people. There is nothing wrong with that. But when saying publicly "I hate you because you are not white," then there goes the crime.
dagul is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 8th, 2017, 03:45 PM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,501

Freedom of speech does not include the right to incite to riot.
Chlodio is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 03:47 PM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
Freedom of speech does not include the right to incite to riot.
Right because that belongs to situation where the tenor of the words provoke "clear and present danger."
dagul is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 05:03 PM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
And who decides what is 'dangerous speech'? There are already laws in place to protect against libel, slander, false advertising etc. along with the obvious public good of the fire in a crowded theatre scenario. What you propose is a restriction of the expression of ideas, an entirely different thing.
Well they aren't ideas, they are false, dangerous and are empirically untrue and I guess those would be the two criteria, although the second one's more important. More concerned with these ideas being given a platform by companies and stuff than people in their houses talking and private speech but that's how this kind of thing starts.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 05:06 PM   #15
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouLoveMeYouKnowIt View Post
Promoting Nazism, and not the Golden Dawn "I am not a Nazi (but I really am deep down inside)" kind of Nazi. But real Nazis who want ethnic cleansing. Assume that. Is that allowed?
Nazi's don't need to promote ethnic cleansing to be Nazi's. The NDSAP in Germany didn't just magically become Nazi's the moment they decided that their "solution", to what they perceived as an impure Germany was genocide, they were Nazi's before too. That being said in terms of censorship that's a pretty decent line to draw. I feel that censoring things because they are offensive has less public utility than things that are untrue and/or harmful although ironically society seems to be way more eager to limit the former than the latter which always bothers me.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 06:41 PM   #16

Nickname's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The "doctrine of clear and present danger" and the "dangerous tendency rule" are bench marks legal principles in determination of them.
I think bad tendency has been replaced by the imminent lawless action standard. For good reason, too. The bad tendency test was really subjective.

Last edited by Nickname; November 8th, 2017 at 06:48 PM.
Nickname is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 07:16 PM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickname View Post
I think bad tendency has been replaced by the imminent lawless action standard. For good reason, too. The bad tendency test was really subjective.
Sure, the "clear and present danger rule" is the standard today in democracies because the "dangerous tendency rule" is very broad that the discretionary powers of the implementing authority or government agency tends to abuse it which you call it very subjective.
dagul is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 07:23 PM   #18

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 6,182

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Well they aren't ideas, they are false, dangerous and are empirically untrue and I guess those would be the two criteria, although the second one's more important. More concerned with these ideas being given a platform by companies and stuff than people in their houses talking and private speech but that's how this kind of thing starts.
In your opinion perhaps, but maybe not in others. By what right do you decide who gets to say what?
In any civilised society any idea can be freely expressed, and just as freely disagreed with. If one attempts to ban speech one doesn't like then A. The banned speech is given a legitimacy it may not otherwise have had, and B. Those who ban the speech are guilty of restricting the right of the people to form their own opinions.
Belgarion is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 09:01 PM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
In your opinion perhaps, but maybe not in others. By what right do you decide who gets to say what?
In any civilised society any idea can be freely expressed, and just as freely disagreed with. If one attempts to ban speech one doesn't like then A. The banned speech is given a legitimacy it may not otherwise have had, and B. Those who ban the speech are guilty of restricting the right of the people to form their own opinions.
Your first sentence is not a credible counter to what I said, if you can't think a better argument than "who are you to say those things should be limited" then you don't have any actual substantive reasons, just more of "everyone should have a right to say what they want, regardless of harm" nonsense and you're justifying it by taking the focus off of the merits of what I'm saying and putting it on the alleged"arbitrariness" of it(and these issues are not really arbitrary). All the examples(okay trickle down in certain situations maybe but I was talking about an America specific one) are self evident and it's dangerous for people to think it's a matter of opinion. That's the whole point.

Also if it's empirically untrue it isn't an opinion, that's the main issue a lot of people don't seem to understand. No respect for the truth anymore.

In terms of the legitamacy argument that's nonsense. If a clearly incorrect idea is given a voice to a larger platform(and to be clear I'm talking about having these views banned from like TV etc) even if it's clearly nonsense assuming no one will come to the conclusion it isn't nonsense is naive and in the case of issues like climate change even 10% coming to the wrong conclusion is incredible harmful(and the numbers very north of that).

The key pre requisite to a healthy democracy is education and people being well informed. If mis information is out there with the potential to cause tangible harm, it should be halted because it poisons the democracy and leads to people making harmful decisions they wouldn't have made without the bad information. Calling this mis information an opinion and given it the same voice as an opinions backed by(non influenced) experts etc is disgraceful and is one of the big problems with the society we live in.

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; November 8th, 2017 at 09:03 PM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2017, 11:28 PM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,913

In the US freedom of speech has a number of limitations: fraud, libel, lying under oath, reckless endangerment (falsely yelling "fire" in crowded theater), revealing governent secrets, violation of contracts, judicial orders, provocking violence, lying to Congress, lying to FBI. Courts have also upheld laws against public profanity and disturbing the peace.
stevev is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
acceptable, freedom, limitations, speech



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Freedom of Speech 1917 Harpo American History 1 April 26th, 2015 01:45 AM
Freedom of speech or freedom for idiocy. Vladimir1984 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 42 July 3rd, 2014 01:12 AM
Should we curb freedom of speech? Son of Cathal Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 47 August 6th, 2011 10:01 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.