Freedom of speech

Geoff
Geoff: Here's an ethical question for you:

Is it morally justifiable to utilise legally recognised freedom of speech to demonstrate for something which would (if successful) curtail those same freedoms?

Doesn't that make someone a hypocrite and remove all credibility to their argument?
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: I would think so. I'm not sure if it removes credibility from their argument or not. That might depend on the argument. But the hypocrisy of such an act is undeniable. Those demonstrating against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" would fit this mold, I would think.

An American burning the American flag smacks of this sort of hypocrisy too, I think. I know many non-Americans with objections to our foreign policies might perceive the image of our flag quite differently, but in our country, that flag represents Freedom with a capital "F". Burning that symbol of our freedom is pretty hypocritical, I think. Although I personally would find that incredibly offensive, restricting the freedom to be that sort of hypocrite would offend me infinitely more.

It always behooves, however, to remember that some "free speech" isn't really speech at all. It's an act. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, etc.
13 years ago Report
0
CandyRivers
CandyRivers: bnp should be free to speak as should the anl- you can speak but we are free to protest.

plus you don't have to listen to what others say.
13 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation.

The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used...the right to express an opinion in public without being restrained or censored.

.
13 years ago Report
0
duncan123
duncan123: people are free to say what they want,,,?so why don t people say anything about all the deaths and the distruction that we have so far survived?
if we don't discuss the new problems we will encounter things we can't survive.
13 years ago Report
0
Karma
Karma: I'm confused, Geoff. Give me a potential example. Like someone saying, "I should not be allowed to say this."?

I can think of an example of Freedom of Speech being used hypocritically that I've actually seen ... I've seen Tea Party people here in the USA carrying signs saying "NO GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE & KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!" (That might not be an exact quote. I'm guessing there was at least one misspelling in the sign.) But that example doesn't limit freedom of speech.

SITS' example of Flag burning doesn't limit freedom of speech. Nor do the Mosque protesters.
13 years ago Report
0
duncan123
duncan123: i ment there is no government in the former usa
13 years ago Report
0
oooREDEYEooo
oooREDEYEooo:

..."the law of the land in conjunction with the freedom of speech given would answere the question eye guess"...

oooWHAT-IS-FREEDOM-THESE-DAYS-ANYHOW-EYEooo
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Karma says: "SITS' example of Flag burning doesn't limit freedom of speech. Nor do the Mosque protesters."

That initial post of mine was written late at night, and perhaps it wasn't written as clearly as it could have been. I'll have another go at it.

Geoff asks two questions. I'll tackle the first question first.

Geoff:
"Is it morally justifiable to utilise legally recognised freedom of speech to demonstrate for something which would (if successful) curtail those same freedoms?"

"Morally justifiable" is a broad concept. I think it would be possible to have circumstances where it is both morallly justifiable, and circumstance where it's not. I think the latter would occur far more often.

Geoff:
"Doesn't that make someone a hypocrite and remove all credibility to their argument?"

I'm not sure if it removes credibility from their argument or not. That might depend on the argument. But the hypocrisy of such an act is undeniable.

Those demonstrating against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" would fit this mold, I would think. They wave the American flag, the symbol we Americans use to exemplify freedom, yet want to limit the First Amendment rights of those that want to build the mosque. That is quite hypocritical.

An American burning the American flag smacks of this sort of hypocrisy too, I think. I know many non-Americans with objections to our foreign policies might perceive the image of our flag quite differently, but in our country, that flag represents Freedom with a capital "F". Burning that symbol of our freedom is pretty hypocritical, I think. Although I personally would find that incredibly offensive, restricting the freedom to be that sort of hypocrite would offend me infinitely more.
13 years ago Report
0
Karma
Karma: I didn't mean to imply that your examples aren't in ways hypocritical. I was asking for an example which fits Geoff's question. Which your examples do not. His question is about using Freedom of Speech to protest in favor of restricting Freedom of speech. I was wanting an example of that.

Your examples, SITS, are hypocritical, but what the protesters are proposing would limit Freedoms, but not necessarily Freedom of Speech.

It's possible I'm still not making myself clear. Sorry.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: A protestor at the Ground Zero mosque is utilizing his own First Amendment rights in order to advocate restricting someone else's First Amendment rights. Not allowing someone to build a mosque would certainly restrict their right to speak freely within it. The right to practice one's religion is tightly bound to the right to speak freely (and to assemble). People generally don't practice religion in silence.

I guess you're right about the flag burning. It's a hypocritical act, but not in the way specified in Geoff's initial questions.
13 years ago Report
0
Malobear
Malobear: StuckInTheSixties,you keep referring to the Ground Zero mosque controversy. Most people seem to disagree with building the mosque not because of it being Arab/Muslim faith,but because so many people of every faith around the world lost their lives. Most feel that a memorial should be built on the same spot in honor of those people that died. It is a financial district,so why would anyone build any house of worship there or anywhere around it? What are they going to do? Pray to Allah to win big today or because they just lost their ass. Something stinks about the whole thing. Checkout how many mosques exist in New York City. Many wonder the motive behind it.This has more to do with how someone or group chooses to spend their money,then freedom of speech. Which brings up another interesting question and maybe a different thread.To answer Geoffs question, in general it does.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: "... you keep referring to the Ground Zero mosque controversy."

I've really only referred to it once. I've only referred to it subsequentially in order to try to clarify something for Karma, not because I'm fixated on it, okay?

"Most people seem to disagree with building the mosque not because of it being Arab/Muslim faith,but because so many people of every faith around the world lost their lives."

I disagree. These days, there is a growing anti-Islam sentiment in the USA (and elsewhere as well). There seems to be a number of reasons for it: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; continued attempts by fanatics to attack us again; the Tea Party movement; pandering politicians in the recent election; etc.

The Ground Zero mosque protest has fueled the growing anti-Islam sentiments to no small degree. If you look at the protestors there, with only rare exceptions, they are unambiguously anti-Muslim. The leaders and ongoing organizers of that protest, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, co-founders of the organization Freedom Defense Initiative claim not to be anti-Muslim, but I've seem them myself in a televised "town hall" type gathering with a wide range of people talking about that issue, and their extreme revulsion to even the most moderate Muslim voices in that setting was palpable. Even a cursory Google search on those two reveals all sorts of other anti-Muslim activities they're involved in. I could go on about those two, but it's wandering off topic.

"Most feel that a memorial should be built on the same spot in honor of those people that died."

There is a memorial there now. Just Google "Ground Zero Memorial" for all kinds of information about it. There was intense debate as to whether Ground Zero should be built with another high-rise, or left as a memorial. There are both. And more. Again, Google for more information.

"It is a financial district,so why would anyone build any house of worship there or anywhere around it?

There are currently at least twenty-five churches within one block of Ground Zero.

"Many wonder the motive behind it."

Many do. Those opposed to it frequently say that the motive is to encourage more anti-USA terrorism by having a "victory mosque" right there at Ground Zero. Others say that it would be an effective counter-terror demonstration of tolerance that could be used to counter the claims made by radical Muslims that the main intent of the West is to destroy Islam.
13 years ago Report
0
oooREDEYEooo
oooREDEYEooo:

'USA INVENTED TERRORISM'

..."if some so called 'super-power' declared 'war' on my own country with a government like America's at the time of 911..."with us or against us"...and ignoring the United Nations and most of the world in general...dogmatic as always at the very least...eye too would take advantage of that countries so called freedoms and probably do the same to make a point of a so called 'super-powers' hypocrisy in their own streets after so much death and destruction at the expense of the rest of the worlds 'freedom' and well being...as it is and was an 'illegal' war on another country to begin with...and oh...where is Bin Laden...not in custody that is for sure...keep on spending trillions to destroy millions including 'lives'...Satanic to type the least"...

oooFREEDOM-OF-SPEECH-FROM-AUSTRALIA-EYEooo

PS : 'sickening to think this person visited my country of late...leave us alone...better without your filthy foreign policies and evil hypocrisy'

PSS : 'when a 'President' gets 'sucked off' by an 'intern' in the 'Oval Office' and lies to their country afterwards...you know that country has a problem'

13 years ago Report
0
Malobear
Malobear: If you read this http://www.christiantoday.com/article/faith.groups.differ.over.mosque.near.ground.zero/27039.htm
There is some good pros and cons to it. Once again, I dont see it as a freedom of speech issue as much as a freedom of act issue.
And there is over 100 mosques in New York City area alone.hmmm
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: So much for Geoff's topic ...
13 years ago Report
0
oooREDEYEooo
oooREDEYEooo:

..."so much for America's credibility"...

oooWHAT-A-SHAME-EYEooo
13 years ago Report
0
Malobear
Malobear: Well Stuckinthesixties,you bring up that controversy in this context,and I dont not agree with you,deal with it. Over course the New York City peoples opinion dont count for anything do they? btw,most do not want it.Next
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: What is it you don't agree with?
13 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: Why give freedom of speech to a fascist group who,if they came to power,would deny you that very same right?

NO PLATFORM FOR FASCISTS!
13 years ago Report
0
Geoff
Geoff: I thank you Jack for returning to the topic. It isn't just fascists though, hard line Communists and a whole slew of different religious groups do the same.

While many of these are straw men and are easily brushed aside, some refuse to SUAFO.
13 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: I totally agree with you.

I would have a problem if a Marxist-Leninist group came to prominence.I do sometimes engage these groups on the internet(red baiting) and some of the arguments that they come up are extremely shocking.For example a number of the "trots" were insisting that the mass murderer Felix Dzerzhinsky was misunderstood.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

The biggest problem with identifying the autocrats in Marxist train of thought is the fact that they preach equality.So generally speaking the autocrats are harder to spot.

However it is very easy to spot the Fascists who preach hate.
13 years ago Report
0
Geoff
Geoff: Iron Felix was misunderstood?

Yeah...
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: "Why give freedom of speech to a fascist group who,if they came to power,would deny you that very same right?"

Does anyone else not see the Orwellian irony and hypocrisy in this statement?

By denying a fascist group freedom of speech, you become them. You're making freedom of speech a prize to be won, stolen or captured, which can then be kept from others.

Denying freedom of speech to anyone gives someone the power to use that speech, while denying others. Given the frailty of human nature, how can you be sure that those elite with the power will not succomb to that human nature, and become like the fascists we despise?

Who gets to decide who is a fascist, and who isn't?

Answer: whoever has the power to do so.

"Why give freedom of speech to a fascist group who,if they came to power,would deny you that very same right?"

Answer: The reason to give a fascist group freedom of speech is that it is a reasonable price to pay to insure your own freedom of speech. The answer to fascism, and other evils, is MORE speech, not less.
13 years ago Report
0
Geoff
Geoff: I don't think it is entirely subjective. While the people currently in power do make the rules, and in any democracy it is too easy for objectivity to be lost. There are clear signs when someone is campaigning for something which will incredibly detrimental to the individual freedoms of the people.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: "... in any democracy it is too easy for objectivity to be lost."

So true. We are so imperfect. That is why it's important to allow ALL voices to be heard. The restriction of ideas, any ideas, is a slippery slope.
13 years ago Report
0
Page: 12345