Freedom of Speech VS Censorship

The problem with vulnerable people is that they are vulnerable
It's a bit tough to expect the victim to be the only measure of appropriate response to being attacked, so I think lines do need to be drawn in some cases. It's what governments are supposed to do, cover the weak areas so they are not taken advantage of, and providing some measure of 'security' as some baseline for maximum participation of the highest amount of that societies population. It's not really shown to be appropriate to pretend others will protect strangers in complex, dangerous or unexpected circumstances reliably... while it might happen from time to time its usually a safer bet to have some 'professional' capacity to provide security to the vulnerable.

And the problem is compounded since it seems quite difficult to measure suffering in someone else unless your right there with them, so those protections might then logically have to err on the side of being slightly too heavy BUT freedom of speech more generally seems vital as a measure of vibrancy in some way, maybe because we are social creatures seemingly or at least view ourselves as such.

A common argument I hear on topics like this is that what is a right to one is a duty to another. Education is not censoring ideas in favour of others. It is providing sufficient information on as many of them as can be in a maximally neutral way to the best knowledge of the educators. What opinion the person forms as a result is their business and short of the clichée example of yelling fire in a full theatre, or crying for violence in an already agitated group, I believe that expressing ideas should come with no legal consequence. The associated duty falls not to fellow citizens, to listen to anything anybody says - nobody is entitled to their ideas being heard by those who otherwise wouldn't wish to hear them - but to the sovereign to protect the speaker if need be, from those who would wish to violate their right to speak. Individually we are not obliged to feel tolerant about anything, but if we collectively decided that we want freedom of creative expression (i.e. speech, written word, art etc; as opposed to destructive), then those we elected directly or indirectly to represent and enable that ambition must not be choosing what specific ideas are or are not permissible. Rather their job is to expand the law in accordance with the will of the people and enforce it through the protocols expressed therein for that purpose. If we collectively say that an idea must not be spoken, by doing so we deny those who do or used to hold it the social contract. We exclude them from society and deny them representation. Power formed in that way does not originate with all citizens living under it and can thus not be legitimized as being rooted within the citizenry until and unless the people whose ideas we wish to ban are also denied the right to vote.

Ideas are one thing but there is also information - which could be seen as distinct in having real direct associations. While ideas might simply create subjective interpretations, in contrast might not information inform about something - and so education might be better shaped to engage with a particular audience to take into account various factors which might impede learning... including maybe sensitivity in some topics. Not to mention privacy and security vulnerabilities.

People get too offended by others viewpoints. It's virtually impossible to go anywhere now and not get someone that doesn't agree with you on a certain subjects. I have a right to my opinion just as much as you do and I have a right to voice it if I wish but, my opinion and right to stand on my own "soap box" is my choice alone. Too much hate in our world today. Whether it be on subjects of religion, politics or anything in the middle. Now, Albeit I know in certain countries you don't have that right and/or is limited by the government. I am not for riots, hate crimes against humanity or a public figure just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to take it to the next step with violence or criminalize that person for having a right to voice their opinion.

"There is no emotion, there is peace."
MTFBWY

Education is not censoring ideas in favour of others. It is providing sufficient information on as many of them as can be in a maximally neutral way to the best knowledge of the educators.

It's...not that simple.

I train people (call it education maybe) The things I train in are things that can kill or maim you.

If I was being completely "neutral" - I would just give a Physics and a Biology lesson, and let them work out what happens :laugh:

So, I train people in the "right" way to do things...and leave it at that.

I suppose if I wanted to be fair, I could teach the wrong way, but there really isn't much benefit, and it only confuses the mind (Shit, which way was the right way?) - If I only teach the safe way, they know that ANY OTHER way is NOT the safe way.



One might take this sketchy example further, and say if I discovered someone was out there teaching dangerous practices to people in the field, I would take exception to that and attempt to stop this.

Am I denying them freedom of speech? am I censoring them? - Sure I am, because they're giving out dangerous "information"


You're welcome to your views and opinions in the privacy of your own home - If you're persuaded you can freefall 45m and stick the landing, bloody well go for it - Don't imagine you have any right to persuade anyone else those views have any validity or value.

When I said neutral I didn't mean that the teaching ought to be without judgement or present all alternatives as even to qualify as education. Sure, you can say that some people believe that they would fall if they jumped off a bridge and others don't, but it would be quite the disservice to the students if one were to withhold the fact that one of the camps is incorrect by an outrageously overwhelming amount of standards. Of course the fair and neutral position becomes ever more blurry the farther we move away from matters of fact and onto questions of politics or ethics. Being honest may not be sufficient to stay fair, but one who is fair (to the extent that we can tell so) must as well be honest.

Leah Starspectre wrote: I think that mob censorship has no place in intelligent society, period. But if a person has beliefs that he feels will lead to people attacking if he speaks them, he has 2 choices:
1. Say what he wants and take on the fight
2. Not say them in the interest of self-preservation.

His freedom to speak (or not) remains.

Should the mob be free to speak their thoughts? Yes. Should they be allowed to.censor his thoughts? No.

Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.


As far as my thoughts on the matter I believe short of calling for outright violence ( which is no different than threatening someone directly in my eyes) there is no such thing as hate speech. Speech that hurts my feelings or says that I am lesser for whatever trait you care to mention has all the power I give it. Censoring it with mob threats or legal ones does nothing to refute the idea or make it go away. It deepens the idea by driving it underground and making people wonder what the censor is so afraid of. " Cutting out a man's tongue does not prove him a liar, it shows you fear what he might say"

MadHatter wrote: Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.

Not really, because I'm talking about words, not physical assault. Physically attacking/threatening someone is illegal - launching words at them is not.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.

Not really, because I'm talking about words, not physical assault. Physically attacking/threatening someone is illegal - launching words at them is not.

MadHatter mentioned "Threat of Force". This is what we see in the article. People are being censored by a mob that threatens violence if you don't conform to their views. MadHatter's parable seems to fit the description. You can:

A ) State your opinion despite the loaded gun (the mob) and get the bullet
B ) Don't say anything and have your rights taken away by the mob.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.

Not really, because I'm talking about words, not physical assault. Physically attacking/threatening someone is illegal - launching words at them is not.

Ok, might have misunderstood your meaning because when I hear mob I think the mobs of thugs that tried to burn down Berkeley because they didn't like a chosen speaker. Frankly, even the mobs of screaming animals that try to shut down an event that people paid for is censoring free speech. If every time you tried to speak I screamed over you with a megaphone you can't honestly say you are free to speak. I mean that would be like saying you are free to post here if every time you posted it just got blacked out.
EDIT: Better example would you say you were free to see a movie if every time you tried to fifty people stood in front of the screen and screamed to down out the sound? Or would you say the stopped you from seeing it and want a refund?

Also yes I have harsh thoughts and words about these mobs because I can't stand their mentality. You do not get to shut down speakers people invite & pay for just because you dont like them. You are darn near robbing people by doing so. Don't like it, don't attend, get your own speaker for your own event, challenge the ideas at a debate. But shutting them down is cowardly, borderline theft, and the tactics these people use are similar to chimps shrieking and flinging poop at a zoo.