Free Speech: Is It Fine to Say Something Offensive?

What are you talking about? You Americans are so brainwashed with this stuff it is scary. Listen to the way you talk. "The state can only take them away, not grant them". Always talking as if the government is your enemy - yet at the same time telling us that it is your government that gives you all these freedoms.. It is bizarre.

You are born into a society - the only rights that you have are the rights that the societies state grants you. If you were born in or live in USA then you have the rights of an American citizen. Do you understand? What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

Where do your rights come from? Please tell me. From God? Or from your US constitution? We have a constitution in Australia too you know. There is nothing at all special about your US constitution.

Where do Human Rights come from? They come from global governance dont they? If you were born a Jew in Germany before these human rights were made up then the state could do a lot of bad things to you and you had no rights. The point of human rights is to grant every citizen of earth with rights that they are born with due to the fact that they were born into a world with global government. We need universal human rights so we do not get bad states like the Nazi that was able to do all of those terrible things to Jewish people and others. Your rights come from the state. How can you be born with rights? Where did you get this idea from? Since you use the word "inalienable" I am guessing you got this idea from the US constitution right? And your US Constitution came from the US state/government right? You are born with the rights of a US citizen because you were born in USA under the US government right? Your rights come from the US Government right?

 

Well I would not go so far as to say that calling people limp wristed hippies is hate speech. Jesus Christ. That is what you consider to be hate speech? I am saying that authoritarian governments are not what makes me think 'limp wristed cowards' - it is America that makes me think that. Your Federal Government is weak as hell. And part of the problem is this crazy American mentality that your Founding Fathers gave you that encourages you to be hostile to the government. The Federal Government cannot even get states to obey Federal drug laws. It is ridiculous. And without a strong Federal Government you really do not have a united identity.

 

No one is telling Russians they have to be gay merely that they ought to stop jailing gays. France had a rebellion of the poor because there was no middle class remaining, The rebellion came at the end of several centuries of being jailed and murdered for the failure to kiss the kings ass with enough frequency and fervency. America had a middle class revolution. So no not quite a copy and certainly didn't work out the same, other than those two minor discrepancy wyou were correct in that every country on the planet ignores UN dictates when ever it suits their needs or fancies. So ye pretending that the UN is some sort of super government is at best ludicrous and at worst delusional.

 

A failure to be sufficiently hostile to the government authorities creates a nation of slaves.

 

Why is it any of Americas business if they jail gays? And Russia does not jail gays anyway - it is not illegal to be gay in Russia it is just illegal to promote gay propaganda - and most people actually agree with this in the west - most Republicans do now want books teaching children to be gay in US preschools and school, and here in Australia most of us do not want the gay propaganda program 'Safe Schools' to promote gayness and transness to our children. USA only uses human rights issue to promote US cultural hegemony and as a tool of US imperialism. The main reason the UN has no power or authority in the world anymore is because USA ignored the UN to illegally invade Iraq - because the UN relies on all nations respecting its authority but since leader state USA isnt going to respect it then why would anyone else? One of the main reasons for the Un and the League of nations before it was to prevent conflicts like the Iraq war. So USA cant complain if Russia or China ignores international law because USA ignores international law. Plus since USA has lost control of the UN - with them being isolated on Palestinian statehood and with them being unable to get their way due to Russian veto powers USA does not like to go through the UN anymore and pretends that the US Government is the world government and it is the US Government that can authorize military action over the decisions of the UN/global community.

And yes I get the first Frecnh Revolution kind of mixed up with the second French Revolution of 1830. That is the liberty revolution more in-line with your American style liberty isnt it? Liberals. But the big thing with the first one is that they were going after the Royals right? You say ":failure to kiss the Kings ass".. Like you Americans. There were certainly strong similarities and parallels werent there. Not going to get that kind of crap in England.

And who the hell is this 'government' that you speak of? The 'government' will be the winners? Dont you elect your government? You elect these people right? "The government"? What are you talking about 'the government"? edit - wait, that is your signature? Jesus Christ.

 

Nice evasion but you miss the point.

Any and all hate speech is exclusively and strictly subjective which means only the individual can decide what is or is not hate speech.

Anything you say is hate speech to someone and anything I say is hate speech to someone. Therefore any government or state attempt to censor hate speech means by definition discriminatory censorship against something which someone somewhere merely dislikes or disagrees with.

Your speech was as much hate speech as any nazi condemning Jews for being to rich or whatever.

No one else can call any speech hate speech except an individual who hates it and no ones individual view of hate speech is particularly right.

This is why your argument is massively self defeating.

- - - Updated - - -

Your mixing apples and oranges again to defend a failed argument.

Sexual repression ( which I might agree with you on ) is not the same as censoring someone elses views.

Hating someones speech is not the same as censoring it.

All rights are what you are born with you are still desperately trying to ignore that rights and freedoms may only be limited. controlled or taken away they are not granted by others.

 

The invasion of Iraq was legal sorry.

The UN was worthless long before that war

 

No one said the government gave us freedoms.

It did not and no one said it did.

Societies grant no rights and never have done so they can only give you permission to do something or forbid you and either way it is an infringement on rights which are simply what you would be doing without any permission or restriction.

Sorry reality proves you wrong.

No there is no global governance and if their were it still would only infringe on rights and never grant them.

Human rights is a concept not a thing given

 

Thank you for proving my point, when someone says something you find offensive the best way to deal with it is by education and debate. Not by banning it! By the way I am Welsh and am well aware of Australia's history, also how much Aussies bite when you mention penal colony!

 

The chief problems we have surrounding speech are these:

1) People who can't handle others saying things they don't like, and demanding protection from the same.

2) People using their freedom of speech to be abusive to others. Taking pride in being offensive, a jerk, or a bully might make you feel powerful, but it doesn't speak well of your character.

3) People not understanding what the right to free speech really is.

What kind of society do you want to live in? A cooperative society where people try to get along with each other despite their many differences, one that allows the best ideas to rise to the surface, regardless of the source? Or do you want a divided society where various factions are constantly at war with each other, obsessed with 'winning'? Do you want a society where people dwell in echo chambers, admitting only ideas they personally find agreeable? Do you want a society where success is based on merit, or identity?

Those questions aside, I oppose 'safe spaces', 'trigger warnings', and the criminalizing of unpopular speech as 'hate speech'.

The solution to speech you don't like is to use your own equal freedom to speak your own views.

Many complaints about having one's freedom to speak suppressed are nothing of the kind. The freedom of speech is a protection against the heavy hand of government, not a protection from criticism by individuals, or the policy decisions of businesses and organizations. They aren't required to provide you with a venue to spew venom or be disruptive.

 

Well, thank you for helping me prove my point. See, everything you just said goes against everything I believe in. In fact, I consider what you wrote as dangerous and ignorant, but I will fight for your right to say it.

 

It doesn't surprise me to hear that an Australian does not believe in inalienable human rights. It is true that out in Nature there is no such a thing as a "right". However, civilized societies and people acknowledge it as a concept, so it's real in this sense. If a government takes away my inalienable rights, then yes, there is nothing I can do about it, however it would be acting in an un-civilized manner. If it does this to enough people for enough times, this government will eventually be taken down. And it's because most civilized people believe in rights that cannot be taken away by the state or anybody else. Not sure about you, though.

I cannot find any fault with this logic. In fact I think I will start saying this from now on. Thanks TRF.

 

A business is not a person. Only people have rights (despite what others may think).

 

What about corporate personhood? Corporations have freedom of speech and they can and have been owning TV and radio networks for years.

 

I'm actually a Bernie supporter, but I would vote for a dead cat before I would vote in Trump. Trump is not a big supporter of the First Amendment except when it benefits him.

 

the business is run by a person so then what I oppose refers to that person

 

If you are referring to the Citizens United decision, that was the most misguided decision the SCOTUS has handed down since Plessy v. Ferguson. It has done nothing but harm our democracy.

 

A person can discriminate, a business cannot.

 

a businessman is a person one the runs or owns a business is a person

 

Because to limit speech is to limit thought and give the state ownership of your mind and opinion. Maybe you like to be owned by those who presume to rule over you. Americans, at least when it comes to speech, do not.

What makes international "law" any more valid than the COTUS? Is it like the Bible, you just believe in it?

The beauty of freedom of expression and freedom of speech is that it forces others to examine just why they feel offended. It is your choice whether or not something offends you. You own your own mind.

Americans want to be infantilized. So do Australians. The only difference here is when it comes to speech.

 

Nor is Hillary. In fact of the two I said Hillary is worse. I don't recall Trump advocating safe spaces, or any of this other stuff that you find on the left that is as far from free speech as you can get.

 

I am not evading anything, and no it is not the individual that decides what hate speech is or isnt - it is the state and the courts. Of course it is not going to be clear every time - that is why we had to have a court case over the Andrew Bolt article here in Australia where he offended some Aboriginals. Just because an individual or group is offended by speech does not mean that they necessarily have the right to be offended or that they have been vilified. It is the state and the courts that decide what is hate speech - and no calling someone a limp wristed hippy is not hate speech in any way shape or form.

Freedom and speech and freedom of expression and apples and oranges they go hand in hand so if you are censoring expression is the very same boat as censoring speech. The fact is that your media censorship in USA is about the strictest censorship in the west. It probably is due to your 'no sex please, we are American' conservative mentality. And you can hate speech that isnt hate speech, as you have shown about by claiming that calling someone a limp wristed hippy is hate speech.

Who grants your rights then? God? Who grants them?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

You are breaking international law by being in Syria as well. It is you Americans that have destroyed the UN and international law. It is utterly ridiculous for you to expect China or Russia to obey international law now.

- - - Updated - - -

I shouldnt even bother responding to this.

Where does your 'right to bear arms' come from genius?

 

All the education in the world is not going to prevent Poms from having an uppity attitude about Australia. I would expect it from the English but not Welsh. I thought you Welsh were alright. I have no convict blood and my family was in Britain just like yours when Australia started our briefly as a penal colony. And I like the way Australia started out - our history could not be cooler.

 

Ok thanks. you are fighting the good fight..