|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11259091)
Getting some learned commentary here from you two. :thumbup: So what is to be done when censorship already exists within a society? Say blasphemy laws?
If god's not bothered enough to do anything about it, who are we mere mortals to argue? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11259107)
Toss the lot of them, and if god is offended he can smite the miscreants down with thunderbolts rather than let petty humans decide in such things.
If god's not bothered enough to do anything about it, who are we mere mortals to argue? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11258871)
Brilliant. :rofl:
for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection. I agree with you that listening to the loons denying climate change helps to illustrate and enlighten the debate, if only be enabling sensible people to point out the idiocy and hypocrisy of the deniers' position. But that's a different matter from saying you don't want your girlfriend to hang out with black people, or saying you'd like to have killed all the teachers. Is it harmful to society to poison the minds of impressionable young people by spouting white-supremacist invective? Is is harmful to society if you suggest that holders of a particular religious belief are inferior to the rest of humanity and ought to be destroyed? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11259091)
Getting some learned commentary here from you two. :thumbup: So what is to be done when censorship already exists within a society? Say blasphemy laws?
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11259144)
By definition, a society that has blasphemy laws is not free.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11259118)
why the rofl? This is Mill's own position
"Society" elects the legislature. The legislature reflects society's opnion, supposedly. I've never studied moral philosophy formally beyond a short course in high school, but from an interested layman's perspective, the modern interpretation of hands-off libertarianism does not square with Mill's own reflections on the principle of harm. Where this runs into moral fudging is where the line between "offensive" and "harmful" is drawn. Overstepping that line brings you into conflict with the law. Where that line is drawn is a function of the legal framework of whatever country you're in, whether you think that's a risible idea or not. I agree with you that listening to the loons denying climate change helps to illustrate and enlighten the debate, if only be enabling sensible people to point out the idiocy and hypocrisy of the deniers' position. But that's a different matter from saying you don't want your girlfriend to hang out with black people, or saying you'd like to have killed all the teachers. Is it harmful to society to poison the minds of impressionable young people by spouting white-supremacist invective? Is is harmful to society if you suggest that holders of a particular religious belief are inferior to the rest of humanity and ought to be destroyed? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11259186)
I laughed as I've never seen anyone try and use Mill as a justification to the suppression of free speech as it appears you were doing. But, the notion of harm and it is the only limitation on free speech Mill places that I can see, is obviously a direct harm, as in a immediate threat, libel or slander or as Mills states "a positive instigation to some mischievous act." What I believe is clear about Mill’s position is that he does not think it proper to prevent words being spoken because people will be offended by them.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11259212)
I obviously need to read some Mill, then :) The snippets I looked up at lunchtime today lead me to suspect it's not exactly the easiest prose to get through, but I see nothing to disagree with in what you've said here. I guess it's all about where the line is between being offended and being in genuine fear of harm. That is probably necessarily a somewhat subjective thing. As in, I am mildly miffed, you are deeply offended, he is running for his life... :)
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian
(Post 11259184)
Jesus effin Christ can't we all agree that there is no such thing as true free speech regardless if we agree or not.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Oink this one is right up your street so to speak. Should this book be banned the Kamloops School District says No.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...over-1.2641622 |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:11 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.