![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsPeople labor under three common misconceptions of freedom of speech:
1) The freedom to speak means that the words have an associated mandate for others to listen to them and to respect these words simply due to their being spoken. This, to put it bluntly, is nonsense. It always has been, and it will always be. There is certainly freedom to say that Muhammad was a genocidal warlord or that Jesus was a charlatan with delusions of grandeur, but there is likewise the freedom on the part of others to criticize and to ignore such statements. Freedom to speak, thus, is no mandate or obligation, on the part of others to listen to that speech.
2) The freedom to speak has no equivalent protection for those who speak for the consequences of their words. If a Neo-Nazi wades into a gathering of extremist Israeli movements and starts shouting "Opa war recht" he has himself to blame for grabbing the tiger's tail. If a KKK type goes into a New Black Panther movement and gives a Theodore Bilbo-style speech knowing that the people there have guns and/or clubs, he's himself to blame when he gets what he wanted. The acts are crimes and should be prosecuted, yes, absolutely. There is all the same no obligation on the part of anyone to save people from what they get when they decide to deliberately taunt homicidal maniacs and then it turns out that well, pissing off murderous extremists might just be a bad idea.
3) The freedom to say certain things is neither handwave for the things said nor an obligation that everything said is good simply because there is freedom to say it. There are any number of offensive, evil, vile things out there that are said and made. There are films that sexualize real rapes for the titilattion of mass viewings, there are photographs of genocides, lynchings, there are films that are cinematic masterpieces and great changes in the art of film-making but in content are some of the vilest and most disgusting films ever made. There are books that advocate any number of vile, wretched, evil ideas and there are also such fanatical and disgusting testaments to the past generations such as this one:
Heaven brings forth innumerable things to help man.
Man has nothing with which to recompense Heaven.
Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.
Was and is there freedom to say such things? Yes. They are, however, still disgusting and morally repugnant all the same. Freedom carries with it responsibilities, but freedom also is no absolvement of moral judgment. While freedom of speech may and does necessitate the right to say certain things or to make certain films, it is not in itself a reason to support either as sentiments or entertainment, so-called.
1) The freedom to speak means that the words have an associated mandate for others to listen to them and to respect these words simply due to their being spoken. This, to put it bluntly, is nonsense. It always has been, and it will always be. There is certainly freedom to say that Muhammad was a genocidal warlord or that Jesus was a charlatan with delusions of grandeur, but there is likewise the freedom on the part of others to criticize and to ignore such statements. Freedom to speak, thus, is no mandate or obligation, on the part of others to listen to that speech.
2) The freedom to speak has no equivalent protection for those who speak for the consequences of their words. If a Neo-Nazi wades into a gathering of extremist Israeli movements and starts shouting "Opa war recht" he has himself to blame for grabbing the tiger's tail. If a KKK type goes into a New Black Panther movement and gives a Theodore Bilbo-style speech knowing that the people there have guns and/or clubs, he's himself to blame when he gets what he wanted. The acts are crimes and should be prosecuted, yes, absolutely. There is all the same no obligation on the part of anyone to save people from what they get when they decide to deliberately taunt homicidal maniacs and then it turns out that well, pissing off murderous extremists might just be a bad idea.
3) The freedom to say certain things is neither handwave for the things said nor an obligation that everything said is good simply because there is freedom to say it. There are any number of offensive, evil, vile things out there that are said and made. There are films that sexualize real rapes for the titilattion of mass viewings, there are photographs of genocides, lynchings, there are films that are cinematic masterpieces and great changes in the art of film-making but in content are some of the vilest and most disgusting films ever made. There are books that advocate any number of vile, wretched, evil ideas and there are also such fanatical and disgusting testaments to the past generations such as this one:
Heaven brings forth innumerable things to help man.
Man has nothing with which to recompense Heaven.
Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.
Was and is there freedom to say such things? Yes. They are, however, still disgusting and morally repugnant all the same. Freedom carries with it responsibilities, but freedom also is no absolvement of moral judgment. While freedom of speech may and does necessitate the right to say certain things or to make certain films, it is not in itself a reason to support either as sentiments or entertainment, so-called.
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 02:41 (UTC)Otherwise I agree with pretty much everything, just wanted a clarification on that part.
Edit: Sorry, missed the part where you clarified.
My bad
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 02:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 02:46 (UTC)But yeah, by the time the cops break it up, I can imagine the guy on the other end of it already got his extra-legal punishment.
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 02:50 (UTC)The acts are crimes and should be prosecuted, yes, absolutely.
I believe that attacking someone because they say something nasty is wrong, but I also think if people deliberately provoke violent, dangerous people, then they should realize that they're not going to be happy if they get what they want.
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 03:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 07:56 (UTC)Yeee-ha! That's my favorite!
So if you're humiliated by a police or a gang member after posting a true police- or gang-related corruption case story in your blog - there shall be no protection for you cause you knew exactly who you're messing with. Deal with the consequences!
>>taunt homicidal maniacs and then it turns out that well, pissing off murderous extremists might just be a bad idea.
So you're _afraid_ of these weirdos who keep your mouth shut... But good news everyone - the First Amendment is here to protect you!
It's exactly to protect those who speak from murderous extremists, homicidal maniacs and others who's might you're so afraid of.
And remember, "some speeches should be prosecuted" point of view is exactly what corrupted officials, religious maniacs and murderous extremists have.
Where "some speeches should be prosecuted" there is no Free Speech.
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 13:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 13:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 18:10 (UTC)Or rather they hate us because we are wealthy, powerful, and can get away with shit.
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 22:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/9/12 09:02 (UTC)The only responsibility it carries is the responsibility to keep it. Nothing else. It's freedom, not "freedom so long as you don't offend anyone."