Freedom of speech/censorship thread

[Faith]

Our very own FB current event.

In reference to the discussion that was going on in the war thread

Then your having a one sided view of freedom of speech where it's only allowed to say only good things...now that's not freedom of speech is it?

Freedom of speech, in a day to day setting, is fair enough - you can offend anyone you want, if you are that way inclined, and then they also have the freedom to punch you in the mouth. But when you sign up for a message board, you agree to certain rules and guidelines. Those are set down by someone that paid for this board, and they are rules they felt appropriate. There is a difference between someone from, say, Iraq being offended by the statement -

"I disagree with the Iraq war,"

to

"Are you dumb?! The war is ace and anyone that says otherwise is an idiot."

The former, in my opinion, is someone being offended by a sentence that is not intrinsically offensive. The latter is an offensive statement, and a personal statement, and anyone that says that this constitutes as 'freedom of speech' needs to recheck their definition, maybe?

That being said, it can be taken too far by both sides. I feel there have been threads deleted that were unnecessarily done, and it made me hugely angry at the time. However, posts being edited for their offensive tones and personal attacks?... I'm all for, if its member towards member.

If you aren't willing to say it to them in that tone in the pub and get bitch slapped, then don't use the internet to do it just because you can hide behind cyberspace.

Anyway, that's my contribution done, time for breakfast

[Metaphysics]

Our very own FB current event.

In reference to the discussion that was going on in the war thread



Freedom of speech, in a day to day setting, is fair enough - you can offend anyone you want, if you are that way inclined, and then they also have the freedom to punch you in the mouth. But when you sign up for a message board, you agree to certain rules and guidelines. Those are set down by someone that paid for this board, and they are rules they felt appropriate. There is a difference between someone from, say, Iraq being offended by the statement -

"I disagree with the Iraq war,"

to

"Are you dumb?! The war is ace and anyone that says otherwise is an idiot."

The former, in my opinion, is someone being offended by a sentence that is not intrinsically offensive. The latter is an offensive statement, and a personal statement, and anyone that says that this constitutes as 'freedom of speech' needs to recheck their definition, maybe?

That being said, it can be taken too far by both sides. I feel there have been threads deleted that were unnecessarily done, and it made me hugely angry at the time. However, posts being edited for their offensive tones and personal attacks?... I'm all for, if its member towards member.

If you aren't willing to say it to them in that tone in the pub and get bitch slapped, then don't use the internet to do it just because you can hide behind cyberspace.

Anyway, that's my contribution done, time for breakfast



Incitement of violence is where freedom of speech has gone too far, so I can offend but that doesn't mean I offend with with the incitment of violence....so no, they do not have the freedom to punch you in the mouth, it's all about the mentalities, ]...but yes, the interpretation of freedom of speech isn't just relative to what culture you are in but it's individual subjective perception

However I do believe the fundamentals of individualism is freedom and that is speech, without causing physical harm. So regardless of culture of wherever you are, because you are an individual then you have the right in the expression in freedom of speech

of course there are forums and guildlines, I gotta follow those...but the tradegey is, someone ppl turn a rational debate to a personal one, thats why those rules and guidelines are put in place. I gotta follow those cos I actually do wanna post at these boards.

[Faith]

Who sets up those boundries, though?

You can say anything you want at all, so long as you don't wish to physically hurt someone? Forgive me if I'm misreading what you are saying, it's early ;)

I know people that have been much more affected by mental violence than any physical attack has. Where do you draw the line? Personal attacks? Huge verbally abusive attacks against someone in the public eye?

Is it okay to say 'Bush is a f**cking c***?' just because it doesnt incite violence?

[Metaphysics]

Calling Bush a f*king c*** is perfectly legitmate because it's my own opinion, but am I inciting violence with it...no, I seek enjoyment in calling Bush an f-ing c*** but I wudn't wanna kill him cos we supposedly live in a liberal democracy, (well I think it's illiberal) as we have a thing called the law.

[Faith]

By calling him that, I didn't mean day to day, I meant on the message board

I've called him much worse in real life.

By that logic, you can not morally oppose to, say.. Fred Phelps and co

[Metaphysics]

I understand since this is a forum where authority is in the hands of Emma and Noah and guidelines are placed....there is no 100% auntonomy given to the invidual

I personally think Fred Phelps is an idiot, he incites violent-inspiring hate propaganda.

[Faith]

Yes but he doesnt promote physical violence anymore than calling Bush a f-c would, does he?

[Metaphysics]

thats one segement in his message calling bush an f-ing c**t...he advocates incitement to violence towards homosexuals which is wrong.

[Kari]

Seriously, what is so difficult to see?
We are in a message board, one that generally encourages debates. I remember way more heated debates back in the days when this was started and things never got deleted. We discussed, we debated, we never fought.

There was some censorship here lately, maybe there was bias and then steps were taken in order to make this free and open again.
I am a die hard liberal. I have become extreme in my opinions, but never ever one of my posts was edited?
Why is that? Because I didn't break the rules. The rules are few and simple. Don't be offensive! It is that easy.
And I don't think that means to restrict your freedom of speech but to behave yourself.
We all have been to school and probably had a positively good upbringing. I learned not to insult or hurt people and I get no joy out of it, because when it comes down to it, I can like people I disagree with.

Now, for example, when I discuss an issue with Heather, who is absolutely the opposite of me politically, I get no joy out of insulting Bush, but I need to explain my point, which has always worked well.

This is not about censorship. Any opinion can be expressed if it happens within the boundaries of a few rules that do quite have a point.

I can say that I think George Bush was not elected in the first place and that I think he is a danger to the national community. I have several times.
Did I get edited? No.

BUt I am pretty sure I was if I started calling him a ****ing **** or whatever.

Of course freedom of speech is a fundemental democratic rights, but your rights always go only as far as to the point where they offend somebody else's rights.

[Metaphysics]

Seriously, what is so difficult to see?
We are in a message board, one that generally encourages debates. I remember way more heated debates back in the days when this was started and things never got deleted. We discussed, we debated, we never fought.


There was some censorship here lately, maybe there was bias and then steps were taken in order to make this free and open again.
I am a die hard liberal. I have become extreme in my opinions, but never ever one of my posts was edited?
Why is that? Because I didn't break the rules. The rules are few and simple. Don't be offensive! It is that easy.
And I don't think that means to restrict your freedom of speech but to behave yourself.
We all have been to school and probably had a positively good upbringing. I learned not to insult or hurt people and I get no joy out of it, because when it comes down to it, I can like people I disagree with.

Now, for example, when I discuss an issue with Heather, who is absolutely the opposite of me politically, I get no joy out of insulting Bush, but I need to explain my point, which has always worked well.

This is not about censorship. Any opinion can be expressed if it happens within the boundaries of a few rules that do quite have a point.

I can say that I think George Bush was not elected in the first place and that I think he is a danger to the national community. I have several times.
Did I get edited? No.

BUt I am pretty sure I was if I started calling him a ****ing **** or whatever.

Of course freedom of speech is a fundemental democratic rights, but your rights always go only as far as to the point where they offend somebody else's rights.

Freedom of speech isn't just a democratic right, but an individual right broadly speaking. I have no problem with boards guidelines, like I said, I am not the boss round here and I don't exactly have 100% autonomy here, I respect the rules.. I have my own view points if I was to run this.... if the rule is not to be offensive and behave yourself I will do it, I don't wanna leave a stain on my dignity and get banned. I like these boards alot....every action has a reaction and a consequence which I am aware of.

I am just speaking in therms of freedom of speech on the whole.

[Kari]

In terms of freedom of speech on the whole, I think it is fundamental. I think about everybody should get a right to speak because, yes, it is the base of democracy and thus of human rights.

I believe that it is however difficult. I mean, I have protested against demonstrations from the extreme right (neo nazis) and thus I insulted their right of freeom of speech by supporting mine.
However this goes along with my conviction that one is obliged to become active when he sees wrong happening.

[Chris]

Woah heated thread :lol:

But i'm going to have to agree, yes everyone has freedom of speech, and feel free to express your opinions but not in a confrontational, agressive and offensive way, it only gives people the impression that your arguing and not debating.

[Kari]

Well, after all, I think we all want to be friends, or most want to, beyond political views. That makes it important to keep a certain politeness here, if we cannot be nice.

[Ashlyn]

Freedom of speech is an amazing gift.

However, we should think of this forum like we think of a debate or discussion. This forum only functions when people are courteous, polite, and respectful. We all disagree, and that is part of the fun. But we can't have any good discussion on the issues when there are personal attacks or we use language and terms that are offensive to the people we're discussing with.

You think Bush is amazing president? Say why.

You think Bush is a sorry excuse for a leader? Use examples of the things he's done that you disagree with.

If we allow anything and everything to be said, there would be no point of this forum, because it would collapse into random arguments. For intelligent discussion, we have to have guidelines, and those have to be followed.

[jillian]

My opinion is freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. While I disagree w/ calling the president all kinds of things, it doesn't hurt me for anyone to do so. Insert : I disagree with you but will fight to the death for your right to do so et al. I also think that freedom of speech doesn't protect you from consequences. If you say that the president is *)$#@(*)# and the people around you think you're an uncouth idiot, they can do so.

[Faith]

My only issue with censorship on this board is when, say, someone brings a sideline discussion about the war into another conversation (say about capital punishment,) and when they get chastised for this, even if it is brought about in a completely relevant way. That annoys the hell out of me

Otherwise, I second what Kari etc etc have said

[Kari]

It does for me too, and yes, Gem, I think I know what you are referring to. :lol:

[danyjoncew]

My definition of freedom is "to have the right to make a choice". So to have freedom of speech would be having the right to chose if I'm going to to voice my opinion or not, without being legally punished for it or rudely interrupted. Obviously it's extremely recommended that you use your common sense and be polite. And you must know there will be reactions... you need to be ready for them.

But there are many, many ways of censorship, so I don't know if I believe in "freedom of speech". I always laugh when people say stuff like "it's a free contry".

[M&M Vermelha]

I don't agree with your definition of freedom because, really, when you put it like that, I'd have to say of course I can kill a person, it's just a matter of realizing you'll have to face consequences. I don't like how freedom of speech is used sometimes on US.

I like how theoretically it's done here, at Brazil. Here our freedom of speech comes after our duty to respect every single human being. Which means that no, you can't go around saying how great it is to take drugs, you can't go around saying how you wanna every single african-american dead, you can't go around insulting people just because you want to.

Freedom of speech is important when you are discussing things with arguments, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for being able to offend anyone. Or to spread racism, prejudice of any kind, pedophilia and God knows what else.

[Heather]

Freedom of speech is important when you are discussing things with arguments, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for being able to offend anyone. Or to spread racism, prejudice of any kind, pedophilia and God knows what else
Wow, the ACLU really wouldnt like you. :lol:

[danyjoncew]

But killing a person excludes the "not being legally punished" part, doesn't it :lol:? By having the right I was also saying the legal right.

And yes, you have to respect people before doing anything else. That's what I was talking about, it's important to have such freedom, but it's just as important to know how to use it. Things is, sometimes it's really hard to respect some people, nobody's perfect.

[M&M Vermelha]

Probably not, Heather.. lol But it's just how it's done here, and it's something I support, because I do believe respecting differences should be more important. It's by banalizing respect among people that we get high levels of violence, murders, rapes... if it's so okay to support racism and believe on it, what makes so wrong to kill an african-american to prove a point? A person has to touch you to become harassment?

I remember a silly case in which freedom of speech was suppressed by our law against harassment, with nurses. One website had material making all nurses sound cheap and no more than hookers, and it was shut down becase it was only spreading prejudice about a profession that already suffers enough with its history.

[Heather]

Probably not, Heather.. lol But it's just how it's done here, and it's something I support, because I do believe respecting differences should be more important. It's by banalizing respect among people that we get high levels of violence, murders, rapes... if it's so okay to support racism and believe on it, what makes so wrong to kill an african-american to prove a point? A person has to touch you to become harassment?
Oh, Im not disagreeing with you, not at all. That was just the first thought that popped in my head, thats all. ;)

And since this all started because of something FB related, let me give you a little analogy a staffmember said to me recently.

Fanbolt is like a small country. Emma is the President. Me and Chloe are like her Cabinet, or VP, and closest advisors. The mods and supermods are like Congress.

Like any country, FB has laws (or rules). And when those rules are broken, action is taken.

Its not censorship, and anyone who thinks it is, is really missing the bigger picture.

[M&M Vermelha]

I know.. I just also know some people would like to beat me up for defending respect above freedom of speech.

Having rules around FB actually makes me come back. I've seen forums unmoderated and it's just chaos. It's pretty easy to forget how important is to respect others opinion when you aren't the one being disrespected.

It makes me sad knowing that, for instance, KKK is legal in US, it wouldn't be here.

[Ashlyn]

I like the idea of absolute freedom of speech as a general rule, but in order for good conversation and safe spaces (like schools), there do need to be some limitations in certain spaces.

I was just reading today in my government textbook about how online forums often don't lend themselves to citizen discourse because it turns into a mess of rants and un-true facts, and not debate and intelligent discussion. It made me really happy that Fanbolt doesn't have that.

[Heather]

You know, I actually thought about this thread at work today. As Ive said before, one of my best friends at work is a Muslim. Born in Egypt, raised here. Well, at one point today, I asked her to do me a favor, and she sighed and said, "Im gonna kill you." Then I told her what the favor was, and she laughed and said, "Why would I hate you for that?" I laughed back and said, "I didnt said you would hate me. I told you I had a favor to ask, and you threatened to kill me." She shook her head and said, "Yeah, I need to stop saying that."

While it was a light hearted conversation between friends, there was an underlying meaning there, and we both knew it.

[Heather]

sorry for the double post...

...but absolute freedom of speech does not exist, in any country.

If it did you could yell "bomb!" on a plane, or "fire!" in a movie theater. You cant. When your freedom of speech, impedes on the freedoms of others, guess who wins? Its not your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

[Faith]

Well, technically it is.

It's just your responsibility to be sensible about it

[rachelfan88]

Here's the thing, you have no idea how much does censorship takes from you, in my country we used to have freedom of speach, not so much anymore, so I understand why people defend their freedom of speach.

But as my grandma says it's not what you say, it's how you say it, you can say a lot without having to end up insulting each other, having your own point of view and your own opinion is important but part of it means to respect the other.

[Ashlyn]

Plus, it should be mentioned that in the context of Fanbolt, we're not censoring ideals or political differences. We're censoring harassment, personal attacks, and things of that nature. It's just about having a safe atmopshere in which to discuss different viewpoints, and that requires a certain amount of respect.

[M&M Vermelha]

^Which I believe should be done everywhere. If you could censor harrassments, personal attacks and all shapes of prejudice in real world, we would have less terrorists walking around. The lack of respect between human beings is just sickening sometimes.

[Heather]

What Ashlyn said.

And to add to that, we dont even edit entire posts, normally. We just remove the offensive parts. Now, when the whole post is nothing but an offensive attack on other posters, yes, those posts are removed.

[*Ashlee*]

I welcome anything one has to say due to thoughts toward something providing it is done in a non-offensive or harassing manner :) I think thats everyones right no matter where they are.

[Metaphysics]

Freedom of speech is important when you are discussing things with arguments, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for being able to offend anyone. Or to spread racism, prejudice of any kind, pedophilia and God knows what else.


Harm and offence are 2 different things....the argument you've proposed is that in free speech isn't ok to offend as well as harm, that means there is no point in free speech at all because there is a limit which is the offence part...however I agree on the harm part on what you said.

Free speech with the use of a harm princeple is wrong....which is the adovocation of all kinds of racial hatred, pedophila, violence etc etc. If your going to propose an argument, one of the the bi-products of an argument is offence, it's inevatble, otherwise what is the point of an argument? NO point in argument then no point in free speech.

Having an argument...whether it's a civilised, offence is an excuse used in the whole point having an argument rather than arguments used as an excuse to offend. (I'd like to use the word debate lol)...

[Webeh]

Harm and offence are 2 different things....the argument you've proposed is that in free speech isn't ok to offend as well as harm, that means there is no point in free speech at all because there is a limit which is the offence part...however I agree on the harm part on what you said.

Offence and harm are two different concepts. However, in relation to hate speech, there is a lot overlapping of the two. This is where a lot of the controversy over this subject comes from.

For example, say someone said "I think this and that would happen to racial minorities!" This statement would offend certain groups. On top of that, no one reacting to such a statement would result in the potential harm to society. (If there isn't at least some censure, that would basically be the equivalent of saying that it's okay to openly feel this way. Thus, it must also be okay to translate these feelings into action.)

So, I don't really think it's fair to always expect people to clearly differentiate between the two. There is a lot of mixing between the two.

Free speech with the use of a harm princeple is wrong....

I don't know about the US, but this is precisely how Canadian law works. S. 2(b) of the Charter is the freedom of expression. This is a fundamental freedom. However, s. 1 of the Charter allows the state to put a limit on this right if there is a reasonable expectation of harm to society if the act is not censured.

Based on what I said above, M&M Vermelha's actually is correct. The freedom of expression does not give you the right to say whatever you like about anyone. (Ex. You can't say that a certain racial group deserves to die.) Hate speech laws have the authority to intervene here.

[Metaphysics]

Offence and harm are two different concepts. However, in relation to hate speech, there is a lot overlapping of the two. This is where a lot of the controversy over this subject comes from.


For example, say someone said "I think this and that would happen to racial minorities!" This statement would offend certain groups. On top of that, no one reacting to such a statement would result in the potential harm to society. (If there isn't at least some censure, that would basically be the equivalent of saying that it's okay to openly feel this way. Thus, it must also be okay to translate these feelings into action.)


Harm and offence are of course 2 different things...I did say racial hatred is a harm princeple because it's a incitement to harm.

Freedom to offend AND harm is wrong...freedom to offend is legitimate because it verfies the whole point in having free speech, you include both sides (neg and pos). It's all about the words, not the words + physical harm.


So, I don't really think it's fair to always expect people to clearly differentiate between the two. There is a lot of mixing between the two

I am afraid it's fair to differentiate between the two because offence and harm are most definatly not synonymous to one another! One is through words, the other is through physical attack. Theres overlapping when racial hatred is expressed or incitment of violence. If I was having a rational debate with you right now it wouldn't be fair on me if you didnt differentiate between whether I am offending you or harming as you would assume there is an overlap when there isn't,that just makes it even more stupid.


I don't know about the US, but this is precisely how Canadian law works. S. 2(b) of the Charter is the freedom of expression. This is a fundamental freedom. However, s. 1 of the Charter allows the state to put a limit on this right if there is a reasonable expectation of harm to society if the act is not censured.

Based on what I said above, M&M Vermelha's actually is correct. The freedom of expression does not give you the right to say whatever you like about anyone. (Ex. You can't say that a certain racial group deserves to die.) Hate speech laws have the authority to intervene here.


Freedom of speech is a funny word.....as there is a limitation yet it's ironic it's called free speech, makes it an illusion to be honest. But obviusly, the actual word you read isn't taken literally of course. I do believe there is a limit on free speech....which is offence with harm princeple, everybody knows that wrong because that's going too far. The limit on that bit is there because absolute freedom = zero freedom.

If your gonna have absolute freedom to do or say wotever you want, whenever you want then that equals zero freedom cos ppl are gonna get hurt because of someone else freedom to...e.g kill you cos your black after saying I hate N-word, lets kill em.

So what I am saying is free speech is limited on the offenece+ harm princeple....I am most deffo not saying let ther be absolute freedom, I do believe it is/shud be limited on the grounds that your not go and say nasty things and kill. Racial hatred is an incitement of violence.

Free speech is completely pointless if there is no freedom to offend cos it's more limited down to plus side and the cencorshippers, and makes free speech become postive speech or no-nonsense speech

I agree on the harm + offence side (racial hatred, or i'm gonna kill you)..but gonna disagree on just offence alone, free speech is pointless without it.

[Webeh]

I am afraid it's fair to differentiate between the two because offence and harm are most definatly not synonymous to one another!

That wasn't the argument I made. I didn't say that the two were the same. Rather, harm and offence have a strong relationship that results in a very complexly tangled into each other. In some instances (not all), it is very difficult to separate the two. Confusion does occur. It's not unreasonable to expect this.

Also, I think it should be noted that I did not say that we shouldn't have to differentiate between the two concepts. Rather, I said that I think it would be fair to not expect people to "completely" differentiate due to the tangledness of the two terms. Those are two very different statements.

freedom to offend is legitimate because it verfies the whole point in having free speech

I never argued against this point.

One is through words, the other is through physical attack.

Actually, this would be an incorrect statement. Harm does not only exist in the physical sense. This can take several different forms. That's why we have differentiations between physical harm and psychological harm. The laws officially recognize this difference.

The same can be said of offence. Offence can be done through both dialogue and behaviour. The existence of the term "criminal offence" supports this point.

[Metaphysics]

That wasn't the argument I made. I didn't say that the two were the same. Rather, harm and offence have a strong relationship that results in a very complexly tangled into each other. In some instances (not all), it is very difficult to separate the two. Confusion does occur. It's not unreasonable to expect this.

Also, I think it should be noted that I did not say that we shouldn't have to differentiate between the two concepts. Rather, I said that I think it would be fair to not expect people to "completely" differentiate due to the tangledness of the two terms. Those are two very different statements.

This sparks a whole seperate debate......the issue of subjective perception :happy:


I never argued against this point.

I was making a point


Actually, this would be an incorrect statement. Harm does not only exist in the physical sense. This can take several different forms. That's why we have differentiations between physical harm and psychological harm. The laws officially recognize this difference.

The same can be said of offence. Offence can be done through both dialogue and behaviour. The existence of the term "criminal offence" supports this point.

Harm does imply in the physical sense in this context.....psychological harm is an after affect of physical harm, a perfect example is child abuse, rape, incest.

offence can only be said through dialogue....a criminal offence is usually an action and totally different, that's where you've actually committed a crime...e.g murder, thats not allowed. Offence + harm can be done through diagloue and behavior, not by offence alone

[Webeh]

Offence can be done through behaviour. For example, if someone were to masturbate in front of or at you, you might become offended. Hence, you took offence based on someone's behaviour.

a criminal offence is usually an action and totally different, that's where you've actually committed a crime...

It's not so different. You need to consider why a particular behaviour would become a criminal offence. Because enough people take offence to it. It would not be a crime if no one were offended by the behaviour.

Harm does imply in the physical sense in this context.....psychological harm is an after affect of physical harm, a perfect example is child abuse, rape, incest.

Harm exists in the psychological sense in this context as well. In fact, the harm would always exist in the form of psychological harm first before becoming physical harm. For example, say that public figure said "This or that group are worthless and deserves to die" and there was no punishment for those comments. This can harm someone's perception by making him/her think 'This or that group must really deserve to die' and 'Because there's been no punishment, it must be okay for me to kill members of this or that group.' This harm would then manifest itself in the form of physical harm committed against another. This is how harm is officially recognized and measured in the legal sense.

[Metaphysics]

Offence can be done through behaviour. For example, if someone were to masturbate in front of or at you, you might become offended. Hence, you took offence based on someone's behaviour.


now are we talking about freedom of speech or freedom of expression?


It's not so different. You need to consider why a particular behaviour would become a criminal offence. Because enough people take offence to it. It would not be a crime if no one were offended by the behaviour



Offence isn't a one word meaning where it's the same in every context. Your deriving the definition of offence as a violation of the law (that's 1 definition)...another is offence in lets say a political debate where offence refers to argument which has an implication which mitigates an argument against an opposing team.




Harm exists in the psychological sense in this context as well. In fact, the harm would always exist in the form of psychological harm first before becoming physical harm. For example, say that public figure said "This or that group are worthless and deserves to die" and there was no punishment for those comments. This can harm someone's perception by making him/her think 'This or that group must really deserve to die' and 'Because there's been no punishment, it must be okay for me to kill members of this or that group.' This harm would then manifest itself in the form of physical harm committed against another.


This is how harm is officially recognized and measured in the legal sense

Yet you gave an example that how it can harm *someone's* perception....a subjective perception

[Webeh]

Yet you gave an example that how it can harm *someone's* perception....a subjective perception

Harm is always a subjective term. There's no objective way to determine it. An anti-semitic speech can result in physical harm, like it can result in psychological harm. The point of limiting the freedom is to avoid these potential harms.

another is offence in lets say a political debate where offence refers to argument which has an implication which mitigates an argument against an opposing team.

Have you been referring to "offence" as in the "making of an argument." If so, I have to admit that the definition you chose to use for the word in this context is odd. Maybe things would have been a lot clearer if you used the word "argument" instead or clarified that you were using debate terminology.

Offence isn't a one word meaning where it's the same in every context. Your deriving the definition of offence as a violation of the law

1. I know that.

2. No I haven't. I've been discussing "offence" using the meaning of "to be insulted." (I believe this is how everyone else has been interpretting your use of the word.) "Offence" and "criminal offence" are two different things.

now are we talking about freedom of speech or freedom of expression?

That example would be referring to the freedom of expression in general. However, the freedom of speech falls within the category of freedom of expression. They're not two separate entities.

[Metaphysics]

[quote]Harm exists in the psychological sense in this context as well. In fact, the harm would always exist in the form of psychological harm first before becoming physical harm.

So what about child abuse, rape and incest? Does psychological harm come first and then the physical harm..:rollseyes: you did say 'in fact' psychological harm comes first....?!



For example, say that public figure said "This or that group are worthless and deserves to die" and there was no punishment for those comments. This can harm someone's perception by making him/her think 'This or that group must really deserve to die' and 'Because there's been no punishment, it must be okay for me to kill members of this or that group.' This harm would then manifest itself in the form of physical harm committed against another


This is how harm is officially recognized and measured in the legal sense

You did give an example that it would harm someobody's perception which is a subjective perception...yet your saying it's how harm is measured and officially recognized. How can you measure harm from the subjective and become officially recongised universally to the objective. How can you measure from subjectivity? :rolleyes:




Harm is always a subjective term. There's no objective way to determine it. An anti-Semitic speech can result in physical harm, like it can result in psychological harm. The point of limiting the freedom is to avoid these potential harms.


But didn't you just say it's how "harm" is officially measured and recognized with your example you gave...implying harm as objective in what you proposed...now you’re saying harm is a subjective term? It's the perception of what someone see's as harm that is subjective, not the term itself. The term has been objectified in a dictionary to enable universal understanding. The term stays absolute, perception stays relative.

Anti Semitic statements are prejudice statements, so they are already taboo words you can't say.

Have you been referring to "offence" as in the "making of an argument." If so, I have to admit that the definition you chose to use for the word in this context is odd. Maybe things would have been a lot clearer if you used the word "argument" instead or clarified that you were using debate terminology.


Argument is what I have implying to generally...but yeh, my bad for adding debate in that statement than argument.



1. I know that.

2. No I haven't. I've been discussing "offence" using the meaning of "to be insulted." (I believe this is how everyone else has been interpreting your use of the word.) "Offence" and "criminal offence" are two different things

---
The same can be said of offence. Offence can be done through both dialogue and behaviour. The existence of the term "criminal offence" supports this point



Please tell me…if I am wrong or right but have you just contradicted yourself. I mean if criminal offence supports the notion of how offence itself can be expressed then surely there is a connection between them to than being 2 different things?

I really do think that you want free speech limited in both harm and offence sense, I am going to disagree as I feel the offence side is to feeble to be limited and I feel it's legitimate as compared to the harm side.


That example would be referring to the freedom of expression in general. However, the freedom of speech falls within the category of freedom of expression. They're not two separate entities.


I know they aren't separate entities, but the example you gave is an example better suited for freedom of expression …as someone has taken offence to an action that has been endorsed, so somebody's behavior would be deemed offensive, rather than what they said. If we were discussing freedom of expression then I would have proposed a different argument to discuss. I feel your example is slightly irrelevant in the context and discussion of free speech. You have offence that has an action attached to it, I am talking about offence in an argument terms of verbal communication...as I feel that's a thumbs up and well a neccessity in the whole point of free speech.

[*Ashlee*]

I think when it comes to this issue psychological harm must literally come first which will then lead to physical harm. I dont think Ashlyn meant that physical harm is less important and she realizes the danger value in rape/incest etc.

[Metaphysics]

I think when it comes to this issue psychological harm must literally come first which will then lead to physical harm.

then what your desribing is incitement of violence

I dont think Ashlyn meant that physical harm is less important and she realizes the danger value in rape/incest etc

Well who doesn't realize the danger value in rape/incest...it's basic common sense.

I just don't think generally speaking that it's a fact that psychological harm comes first then physical.

It's 2 way equiliberium logic depending on the context.

[M&M Vermelha]

When I said being offensive I only meant personal aggression. Here you can't just go into television and call someone faggot without facing some consequences. You don't need to hit incitement of violence, your need to respect others comes first, so yeah, you can say you hate church, but you can't say you hate every Jew on Earth. Do you see what I was trying to say?

I understand the debate termiology, but I wouldn't misinterpret the word's meaning in portuguese, so I though that I was clear while saying offence.

It's very different making a speech pro-racism and disagreeing with your political beliefs, for instance. Freedom of speech to me, means being able have a good History class without someone walking in and taking you teacher away, like we had for a very long time while at dictatorship.

Our constitution here says we are all equal under the law, and no one can be judged by race, age, sex... it only makes sense to me that freedom of speech respects the same foundation, making sure we don't go around stimulating the same prejudice.

[Kari]

maybe you guys want to open a thread about the difference between harm and offense.

[Webeh]

It's funny how all our threads keep inspiring new threads. ;)

I'll have to step out of this debate for now because of finals. Grr! Afterwards, I'll be back to be more active in the discussion.