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 9th, 2017, 02:51 AM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Somewhere
Posts: 1,328
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Failure to censor climate denial could be a contributing factor to the end of humanity
It would solve the climate problem.
Iphigeneia is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 9th, 2017, 04:22 AM   #32
Jedi Knight
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Indiana
Posts: 6,157

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouLoveMeYouKnowIt View Post
What are acceptable limitations on freedom of speech - statements and expression that warrant justifiable state sanction? Are there any?

Fraud, misrepresentation, omission in contract/business?

Hate speech? Anti-Semitism?
The problem is you have to understand the difference between speech and expressive conduct. Fraud may be speech but it is also conduct. It is the conduct that is restricted not the speech
Mike McClure is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 05:09 AM   #33

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,557

There is also a distinction in law (at least in British law) between something said as fact and something said as opinion.

"He is a scumbag." is libel.
"In my opinion, he is a scumbag" is not.

And it is also not a defamatory act to say something if one genuinely believes it to be true. You can call someone a liar safely if you genuinely believe it to be true. Or if you do it in court, or in Parliament.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 05:41 AM   #34

Nickname's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Fake news and biased reporting comes equally from both sides (although I think that more people on the liberal-left tend to be more unaware of their biases); it is merely that demands for restriction of free expression tend to come from the left nowadays rather than the right, i.e. the demand that people should not be allowed to express thoughts that they regard as false and undesirable.
The difference I've noticed is that, when it comes from the right it's easy to detect the fake news but when it comes from the left it's not. The left likes to pretend that it's unbiased and objective when it's not. I think that's a big part of the problem. Someone mentioned that Alex Jones doesn't have the credibility of CNN and MSNBC. That's exactly why I think I'd rather listen to Alex Jones if I had to listen to either (I don't listen to either), in addition to the entertainment value of his psychotic ranting. At least with Alex Jones you know when you're being lied to... which is pretty much 100% of the time in his case.

Last edited by Nickname; November 9th, 2017 at 05:44 AM.
Nickname is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 05:48 AM   #35

Nickname's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
If views are empirically false AND harmful yes think people shouldn't be allowed to spread things that aren't true. If you had good arguments to support those things you wouldn't have to rely on crying bias and saying everyone has a right to an opinion, nor would you want to. It's a safety mechanism to defend views that can't be defended on the merits and in American society it works, if you're in an argument and you something untrue or are lost, drop that line and the person arguing with you will usually back off. Same with the "well who are you to decide what's true or not".
I'm curious to know what your criteria are for true and empirically proven. Please elaborate.

Last edited by Nickname; November 9th, 2017 at 05:53 AM.
Nickname is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 05:57 AM   #36

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 21,591
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouLoveMeYouKnowIt View Post
What are acceptable limitations on freedom of speech - statements and expression that warrant justifiable state sanction? Are there any?

Fraud, misrepresentation, omission in contract/business?

Hate speech? Anti-Semitism?
The argument is not easy to develop since it involves the cultural background of the posters. In particular the legal context of the countries where we live ... obviously if we are used to live in a certain context, we tend to consider it quite "normal" and different contexts a bit odd.

In Italy [which is a Republic] there is a Constitution stating the basic freedoms of the citizens.

Article 21 states:

Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any
other form of communication.

“Thoughts”, without specifications.

It adds …

Seizure may be permitted only by judicial order stating the reason and only
for offences expressly determined by the law

[Here the Constitution talked about press … it had written in the 40’s]. So there are cases in which limitations can be imposed. Demanding the matter to ordinary laws, the Constitution avoids to state absolute principles; so that the limitations can vary from a moment to an other, according to how the society evolves.

Also the final paragraph of the article is relative to the society:

Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality
shall be prohibited.

Again … “public morality” changes …

In any case, being Italian, I tend to think that limitations to freedom of speech are quite “normal”: in Italy there are laws limiting it, according to the context. Even an elected representative in Parliament has to pay attention to when he says this or that … if he is speaking as representative, he’s “working” as political subject and his declarations are considered political expressions [so only eventual rules of the Chamber can limit his freedom of speech, no other authority can]. But if he declares something offensive not as political subject [even if he is a representative] he is subjected to the law as any other citizen.

[Some of the offenses of Italian members of the Parliament have become pieces of history].
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 06:24 AM   #37

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,557

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickname View Post
I'm curious to know what your criteria are for true and empirically proven. Please elaborate.
Presumably a statement like "average global temperatures have fallen in the last 5 years" can be proven to be empirically true or false.

The causes and implications may be in dispute, but the fact of the temperature change should not be.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 06:55 AM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Presumably a statement like "average global temperatures have fallen in the last 5 years" can be proven to be empirically true or false.

The causes and implications may be in dispute, but the fact of the temperature change should not be.
Well yeah something that is proven, good example. For example the famous "look it's snowing outside my house how can the earth be getting warmer". More importantly it is impractical to call out everything false someone says nor is that good,the focus should be on A major platforms that reach a large amount of people and B things that are harmful.

For example, we know the world is round and that the world is older than 6000 years old but if believing these long proven false notions and attempting to get others to believe these things doesn't cause harm, even to yourself nm society, why should we care? The examples I brought up are ones were things that are empirically untrue or often used as the main reasoning and are examples were that has real consequences.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 07:11 AM   #39

Corvidius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Dinotopia
Posts: 1,505

How long before the mass arrests for "climate change denial"?

Then how long before some people who are mostly "on message" with climate change are arrested for showing "Insufficient climate change fervour"?

How long before the police are renamed the Cheka, or Gestapo or Stasi and there is a "Ministry of Public Safety"?

Caveat.
I of course fully agree that these deniers are wicked people, and I don't want this post to be taken out of context and used to convict me in the future, after all, how dare people speak their mind. Only the state can tell us what to think and say as only they are competent in this matter. All hail the great climate change state, and may you continue to protect the people by shutting their mouths.

Oh Orwell, where art thou in these troubled times.....
Corvidius is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 07:25 AM   #40

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,557

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvidius View Post
How long before the mass arrests for "climate change denial"?
Oh please, reductio ad absurdum has its limits.
Naomasa298 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.