Freedom of Speech and your opinion

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Demon767]

Okay a summary of what this is all about.

I have to write an essay about Freedom of Speech, whether its good or bad or both and why etc etc.

Now for me, i must use the primary source John, Stuart Mill. On Liberty and thus in my essay i must highlight the analyse the four reasons Mills gives to protect the opinion and epxression of Humans. which is as followed.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any object is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

Now if there are any experts out there that want to put forward their opinion here, i am more then happy to read what you have to say, after all, i must gather information. and to those that have to much time inbetween chicken breaks (tym) please, by all means, submit your opinion on this matter.

If you missed it, the question is, do you believe that freedom of speech is fundamentally important?

[brn4meplz]

What level of educational institution are you in for this?

[Demon767]

err.. University.

[MultiDoc]

There's no such thing as "bad thing" about freedom of speech. And in my eyes it's very suspicious that such a question rises in the essay's topic.

[Demon767]

inciting racism and hate speech towards people is still good?

[lionel23]

What about yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater?

[Demon767]

exactly, whether you notice or not, you will be conforming to laws against freedom of speech from the government.

[lionel23]

In my opinion, I would ascribe myself to the notion that Freedom of Speech is valuable and needed for a truly open and democratic society, but within reason and the confines of the law (as deemed by the people and the government).

In referencing this, there are 'bad' examples of free speech which must be restricted or watched, and I will note that the 'harm principle' is the one limitation on free speech that needs to be in place.  Quoting from Wikipedia, this is a summary of the harm principle:

The harm principle is commonly described using this analogy by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr..."The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Also, John Stuart Mills has this to say about limitations of Freedom of Speech:

Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

It has to go towards the whole 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' jazz, in that I don't mind not interfering with another human being or his thoughts/opinions as long as he is not seeking harm against someone else.  That's my 2 cents on the matter, Demon.

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations

[Demon767]

Thank you Lionel, that is the side i am aiming for, however, i need much more evidence etc.

Something to think about however, there was a case in Australia about Incest.

Now this was consensual incest, thus the daughter and father (the daughter is of an adult age) agreed to this relationship (including sexual).

The question remains, yes they are not harming anyone, however, should we restrict such an act that we as a majority in society are against.

Some may argue that any children born would be defected and thus harming another human being, however we must understand that only after 3 generations of 'incest' is the likely hood of deformity risen from 3% to a higher percentage, sorry i forgot the exact percentage.

Or in the case of Bill henson photography of consented teenage girls in nude photos. we have those who are against this form of 'art' and name it pornography.

What i believe you and i must question is that, there is not fine definition of what should be censored, it is only the majority of the people's views at the time, thus this creates inconsistency when we discuss what we 'should' prohibit in freedom of speech and what we are fine with.

[Scotzmen]

There is an array of items that come into play here that effect freedom of speech.

What is socially acceptable in some communitys, could be shunned in others. Then there are individual peoples opinions.

As you said there really isnt any fine definition.

Im guessing the best angle to go at this is to discuss the varying items that play a part in this. Looking beyound the base of the question.

[Demon767]

Oh yer, Thanks scotz, thats my part on researching like 5 books, to get as many variables as possible, so im (hopefully) supporting the side that freedom of speech is good, however, giving credit towards those who oppose freedom of speech because their arguments have merit in them.

but yes, this discussion really does excite me  

oh and Multidoc, would you care to explain your opinion, im eagerly awaiting to see why you think that 

[Sachaztan]

Oh yer, Thanks scotz, thats my part on researching like 5 books, to get as many variables as possible, so im (hopefully) supporting the side that freedom of speech is good, however, giving credit towards those who oppose freedom of speech because their arguments have merit in them.

but yes, this discussion really does excite me  

oh and Multidoc, would you care to explain your opinion, im eagerly awaiting to see why you think that 

I'm guessing Multidoc hasn't given much thought into the matter and just assumes the unalienable virtue of freedom of speech.

[smurfORnot]

erm,guys,you know that there are no such things as 'freedom of speech' ,nor 'democracy' nor even 'freedom' which americans are so proud of.You are constantly being limited,and more and more freedoms are taken from you,and you even dont see it.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Iceland is the only real Freeland

[Demon767]

lol yer American freedom of speech is much more limited then other democracy in the world. very amusing

[Unkn0wn]

Freedom of speech should not be used as an excuse for racism and other forms of intolerance.
Tolerance stops where it requires us to be tolerant of people who preach intolerance.

[smurfORnot]

well,it's someones right to hate other nations/races etc. if they want to.

[Unkn0wn]

It's their right to hate, but it's not their right to preach and spread the hate.

[Mysthalin]

Example of freedom of speech being a bad thing :

NugNug's posts on balance .

[Sachaztan]

Iceland is the only real Freeland

Yeah look at what giving your banks as much freedom as they wanted brought you.