NationStates Jolt Archive

Which one are you for?
I am just going to watch this unfold for awhile.
Also, the reason that you can't have both is that with free speech, you must allow for a certain amount of discrimination.

Also, the reason that you can't have both is that with free speech, you must allow for a certain amount of discrimination.

Why?

Why what?

Both, because that's what the law says.

Which one are you for?
I am just going to watch this unfold for awhile.
Also, the reason that you can't have both is that with free speech, you must allow for a certain amount of discrimination.
And why can't you have both?

A better question may have been: Free speech, or no one gets offended.

Freedom of speech. There's no better way to fight discrimination than to allow bigots to express their opinion; once people see them for what they are, they lose a lot of the appeal that is created by them being an outlawed or illegal organization.

Plus, discrimination is subjective; I'd always prefer to err on the side of freedom and let individuals sort out discrimination either between themselves, between organiazations, or in the court of law.

If what you mean by "discrimination" is the verbal expression of racism, definitely free speech.

I think the large part of the problem is in understanding what exactly "free speech" means. Free speech means that you can say anything you want to say and the government will not stop you from saying it. What people would like to believe, which is not true, is that free speech means you can say anything you want to say without reprocussions. There is nothing illegal at all about advertizers pulling funding from a news show that presents controversial news stories. Nor is it illegal to get up and walk out of a theatre that is showing objectionable material.

Then there's the matter of prior restraint. The government will not stop you from publishing a book of controversial material. At the same time, it will not assign you extra law enforcement protection because you have a deep concern that some unspecified person that does not share your opinion will break into your house and slit your throat in the middle of the night because they objected to what you published.

You are free to say anything you want and you are free to experience the consequences of that speech. To remove one is to remove the other.

Free speech = the right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint.
Discrimination = The act of discriminating.

Apples and oranges... You can have free speech and at the same time place limitations on what actions a person can perform, and it won't be any collision between them.

You may for example say you hate black people, but you may not refuse to hire them because of the colour of their skin.

I'd much rather have politeness than wankers sprouting whatever racist/xenophobic/sexist rubbish they like, and then claiming that it's "their right" or whatever. People who are offensive simply because they can be is the kind of thing that pisses me off to no end.

*edits*

So discrimination it is.

Free speech. We would not be able to say a thing if we all worried or worce, had laws against offending someone.

Freedom of speech! You don't have a right not to be offended.:rolleyes:

Free speech, because no matter what you do, it will offend someone. Describe something black in Spanish? Offensive because Negroe is the Spanish word for black. Smile in Russia? Offensive. Being born? Extremists WILL be extremely offended by your heanious crime of being born, despite you not having a say in the act. Everything offends someone.

Free speech, because no matter what you do, it will offend someone. Describe something black in Spanish? Offensive because Negroe is the Spanish word for black. Smile in Russia? Offensive. Being born? Extremists WILL be extremely offended by your heanious crime of being born, despite you not having a say in the act. Everything offends someone.
Who does this post offend?

Free Speech.

Sticks and Stones and all that...

Who does this post offend?
Russians and extremists.

Who does this post offend?
My crapmometer. It is now fractured.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

With a caveat. That being the prohibition against falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater type of speech. That and prohibition against slader and libel.

Which sounds pretty much just like what we have (in the US).

Really, asses and idiots shouldn't be compelled to hide in the dark, let them out in the light.

Cracking your head open on the sidewalk or Health Insurance?

Cracking your head open on the sidewalk or Health Insurance?
In Soviet Russia head cracks open sidewalk!

There is no law denying you the natural right to say whatever the heck you want to say. Free speech cannot be taken from you, no matter what powers of law or social construct people may try to rack against you. You will probably be punished for displaying aggression and causing explicit harm to people on a discriminatory basis, but you are nonetheless free to say aggressive things and take that risk.

I am of the opinion that discrimination is innate within people, and people are free to express their discriminations, but this must not be aggressive against any specific human targets of such discrimination.

You are welcome to attack my religion (or lack thereof, in my personal case), my philosophies, my political leanings, my social class, my education and even my way of thinking, but the second you unjustly use any of these to attack me personally is when you step over your bounds and the field of libel/slander comes into play.

You are welcome to attack my religion (or lack thereof, in my personal case), my philosophies, my political leanings, my social class, my education and even my way of thinking, but the second you unjustly use any of these to attack me personally is when you step over your bounds and the field of libel/slander comes into play.Oh you make it so incredibly tempting to verbally abuse you.

Still, I agree.

I have discriminating taste.
Give me free speech please.
Discriminating between several candidates in order to cast my vote is a good thing. Not allowing blind people to drive is a good thing. The telephone company should not have to hire deaf telephone operators. Promotions are better done by discriminating between good and poor performance rather than by lottery. The NAACP should be allowed to have a black leader. The KKK should be allowed to have a white leader. People over 75 years old shouldnt be allowed to be firemen.

You can have society as we know it with free speech, you cant without any discrimination.

You may for example say you hate black people, but you may not refuse to hire them because of the colour of their skin.

But should you be allowed to hire them and then proceed to throw insult after insult at them ?

The KKK should be allowed to have a white leader.
The KKK should not be allowed to have a white leader. They should not be allowed, full stop. It is an example of socially organised racial aggression.

Internal prejudice against a black man you see in the street I can to an extent understand. Talking with a black man about these prejudices, or to anyone else about them, I can also understand; it's a necessary part of having them, I suppose. Consciously gathering and targetting people out of these prejudices, I can not. Why on earth do you think we should be allowed to meet and systematically rape, murder and pillage from others on a sheer personal preference? It's ridiculous, unethical, dangerous and bloody stupid, is what it is.

I'd go with free speech since I don't think radicals of any kind will have it easy getting people to respect their ideas (in the western world). But, if I lived elsewhere, I might have a very different opinion.

In Soviet Russia head cracks open sidewalk!

Haha, another one of these jokes. :D

I'd go with free speech. If you don't like what people have to say, don't listen to them.

Free speech

...if someone says something that's retarded/taboo, you can use your free speech to denounce him/it.

If you mean "free speech" as in what it really is, then I am all for it. If you mean it in the manner it is used today, meaning, it is free if you are a minority; and hate speech if you are a majority or Christian, then I am against it. But even then, that form of speech is better than discrimination, for the most part.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

With a caveat. That being the prohibition against falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater type of speech. That and prohibition against slader and libel.

Which sounds pretty much just like what we have (in the US).

Really, asses and idiots shouldn't be compelled to hide in the dark, let them out in the light.

yeah, got to have the sensible caveats included in the ruling.

The KKK should not be allowed to have a white leader. They should not be allowed, full stop. It is an example of socially organised racial aggression.

Internal prejudice against a black man you see in the street I can to an extent understand. Talking with a black man about these prejudices, or to anyone else about them, I can also understand; it's a necessary part of having them, I suppose. Consciously gathering and targetting people out of these prejudices, I can not. Why on earth do you think we should be allowed to meet and systematically rape, murder and pillage from others on a sheer personal preference? It's ridiculous, unethical, dangerous and bloody stupid, is what it is.

what about the NAACP?

Or can only white people be racists?

;)

Free Speech is a power people in the US (and anywhere else that supports free speech) has. and with all forms of power, it comes with responsibilities.

do not take those responsibilities seriously and you will find yourself with less power.

Free speech. As long as biggots are free to express their views, we are free to denounce them. Everything in this world is offensive to someone, there are people who have been offended by something i said simply because they disagreed with me, even though nothing i said was personally insulting. Sometimes people mistake something for being discriminatory even when it's not, because we all have our sensitivities.

I disagree vehemently with people who are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. but i will always defend their right to have those opinions and express them. If we start taking away the freedom of speech from those we disagree with, who's to say that one day ours won't be taken away too? Obviously they don't have the right to hurt or kill people due to their beliefs, and they shouldn't, and i don't think anyone should be allowed to use their words to incite violence, such as saying "let's go kill all the black people." I do however think they should be able to stand up and say "i hate black people."

what about the NAACP?

Or can only white people be racists?

;)
I don't know anything about them. Do they specifically target individuals of other ethnicities? If so, then yes; ban them.

The problem I have is not with ideas of racial proponency. If the KKK were an entirely political movement based on representing the views of white people in a multicultural society then I would have little problem with them. It is the use of these ideas against individuals that I have problems with, and the systematic execution of such ideas is just plain abhorrent. Thus, no Klan.