West Coast Connection Forum

Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: morbidenigma on October 30, 2014, 10:30:08 AM

Title: Free Speech
Post by: morbidenigma on October 30, 2014, 10:30:08 AM
Freedom of speech in this day and age is much examined concept, especially with the "thought police" and "offence police" out in their abundant numbers. It is s a term that is actually slightly misconceived and doesn't accurately describe what right is being contested for and should be protected with you last dying breath and what measures to curtail should be opposed. Technically everyone has freedom of speech, as one can express whatever thought they want from their mouths, and nobody has the capacity to control the thoughts that are uttered from another personís mouth. The real question is which thoughts expressed loudly should face criminal prosecution and what thoughts expressed should be censored in particular domains

Those who are genuinely liberal and don't just call themselves "liberals" because it's perceived as a virtuous idea in most of the first world should only support legal action against one where they incite violence. Never has there been a substantially convincing reason to censor, imprison, ban or block someone for any other reason than when they incite violence and if anyone thinks they have a persuasive cogent argument for it then it should be forthcoming. If one is at physical risk of a violent or fatal attack because of the instructions of another to physically wound them then the person who instigates this action should face criminal proceedings to deter the possibility of one being physically assaulted.

Ideas and words not many how outlandish or how they dissent from majority viewpoints should not face legal repercussions or censorship, violent actions of instructing violent behaviour should as they infringe upon ones right to be physically maltreated. Also violence is not an acceptable response to words spoken by another however incensed those words make you. If something is offensive or hurtful is not a justifiable excuse to be violent, so no matter how angry what another person says to you it's not a valid vindication to respond with violence then blame provocation. Would anyone respond to violent attack with words? So violence should not be a response to words.

Being Offensive is should not face the wrath of the law.  Almost everyone has been offended by something and has at some point said something offensive. In a free society one will hear many views they disagree with, and the mere factor that you disagree with an opinion causes some level of offence and consternation. If you haven't been offended by Television viewing that is appallingly bad try watching an episode of EastEnders. We don't have the right to not be offended and when when you ask for the state to intervene not only do you have a closed mind but you have accepted fascist principles.

If someone is obnoxious it's there their prerogative to be obnoxious and it's your right to completely ignore them. You don't have no obligation to be pleasant to anyone you don't want to be cordial towards. But what if he insults your mum you'll get told? If a grown adult insults your mum, they makes themselves look puerile and inane, they have the rope to hang himself and say things which can only make themselves look very hideous. I wouldn't dignify them or try to stop them saying what they are. They can continue as they like so everyone can see what an nincompoop they are.

Historical claims/revisionism should be open to challenge and dissent whether it's holocaust or supernatural claims/denial, especially as the tyranny of majority opinion has been used historically and presently to imprison and kill those who hold minority viewpoints. A true measure of a democracy is the rights it gives to minority discourse.If you disagree with any persons thoughts you can reply to it or ignore it, explain and demonstrate why you think it's incorrect or mislead if you like.  Banning/censoring any viewpoint if anything adds more weight to what might be a futile argument as it comes  across as being unable to shown why it's incorrect hence the recourse of banning or criminalising that viewpoint to suppress that person expressing it.

To summarise, If you think you have a right to ask or demand authorities or the state to punish or censor someone for what they say that you find unpleasant this displays explicit support for totalitarianism unless itís is a enticement to physically harm others.