Are You a Do-Gooder? Examining Freedom of Speech

[wolram]

i guess we have something in common, then, because i have no idea what you're getting at, either. do you really think people need to be protected from words or ideas? maybe you could be more specific and lay it out for us just exactly what you want to censor and what you think will happen if you don't censor it. because where i sit, i don't see the harm you see. i just see a lot of people disagreeing, yet getting along.

I will let that one simmer.

 

[DaveC426913]

i am only searching for some fair means to judge who is a hate monger, i could name some who i think are, but would the do gooders agree? i doubt it.

Because it's a bluzzy line, it pretty has to be on a case-by-case basis. Which is what the courts are for.

Do you trust that the watchers are objective?

We don't have to trust. We need merely ensure we have a transparent system.

Speech can cause no physical harm to anyone.

I think this is bifurcating bunnies.

That philosophy would give you the right to stand directly in front of me and scream racial slurs in my face at the top of your lungs. you are doing no physical harm.


I would, of course, claim, rightly so, that you're violating my personal space (and the space of my impressionable young children). But at what distance it is considered an invasion of our personal physical space? 5 feet? 20 feet? Within earshot and eyeshot? Could I establish borders, such as this park where I'm strolling with my children?

Some would argue that whole cities and even whole countries are within a person's rights to determine laws such as this. And we're back to government-sanctioned laws on individual behaviour...

 

[misgfool]

We justify this by way of the "social contract": This land* belongs to all of us. To live here, we agree not to harm* each other. Violate* that, and you violate the contract ,and we can by rights protect* ourselves from you. (*all these terms are arbitrarily open to interpretation and degrees of enforcement without substantially affecting the core contract.)

I made above up. It explains in very loose terms why we have freedoms, but not necessarily rights such as free speech i.e they can be revoked.

Isn't this also applicable to Soviet Union or any other dictatorship? I would still prefer to live in a western democracy than the USSR.

We don't have to trust. We need merely ensure we have a transparent system.

Good point. I have to agree with this. But still that's easier said (if allowed) than done.

That philosophy would give me the right to stand directly in front of you and scream racial slurs in your face at the top of my lungs. I am doing no physical harm.

You could claim I'm violating your personal space. but at what distance it is considered an invasion of your personal physical space? Few would dispute that I have the right to command you not sit in your undies next to me and my children on a park bench, cursing to make a sailor blush. I have the right to protect my children (and I don't have to get up and leave to do so.)

Now that is a silly argument. I have also the liberty to exclude myself from your company should you be such a yelling jerk. But just out of curiosity, since I am a white, blond, meat-eating, heterosexual male, what kind of slurs would you use? Also actually my pressure sensing elements are quite sensitive and loud voices can cause distinctive pain.

Offtopic:
Besides I served in Navy recon and I can tell you that sailors didn't bother to blush after 16 weeks of boot camp. Also sailors code of conduct would definitely forbid sitting on a public park bench in undies.

Where do my rights end? Some argue that whole cities and even whole countries are within a person's rights to determine laws such as this. And we're back to government-sanctioned laws on individual behaviour.

In principal I couldn't do anything to your yelling but I probably could get a 300 meters restraining order. So this cencorship of yours would concern only yelling in the streets? People could still write whatever they chose to?

Ps. How does that Multi-Quote work?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Ps. How does that Multi-Quote work?

Multiquote as many people's posts as you want, but quote the last one.

 

[misgfool]

Multiquote as many people's posts as you want, but quote the last one.

You must be a mathematician.

 

[wolram]

All i can say is that do gooders do not want the responsibility to make a decision, they are weak and cowardly, they will support any law written or not.

 

[Proton Soup]

passive-aggressive much?

 

[DaveC426913]

All i can say is that do gooders do not want the responsibility to make a decision, they are weak and cowardly, they will support any law written or not.

I am not really sure what you mean by this term 'do gooder'. I mean, I know what I mean by it, but the way you use it makes little sense. To me, a 'do gooder' is more referring to discrete acts by an individual.

"You should stop using zat word. I do not sink it means what you sink it means."
-Inigo Montoya

 

[DaveC426913]

Isn't this also applicable to Soviet Union or any other dictatorship? I would still prefer to live in a western democracy than the USSR.

Of course it's applicable. How does the preference of country factor in?

Now that is a silly argument. I have also the liberty to exclude myself from your company should you be such a yelling jerk.

Yes but you shouldn't have to leave to enjoy your peace. You have a right to it there.

(Forgive me for opening the racial example can-o-worms, but...)
In the 60's, blacks wanting to eat in "regular" restaurants were told: "if you don't like it, no one's taking away your right to leave."

You can see that their rights are indeed violated despite the fact that they could merely go elsewhere.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Dave,

You're forgetting the fact that someone can file a restraining order if they felt their personal space was being violated. Limiting someones speech doesn't really solve the problem at all.

 

[wolram]

To the mentors ,I know you have thought long and hard about closing this thread, i all so know you have powers to discriminate from what is right from wrong, i hope you will allow this debate to continue as i think human resonsability is important.

 

[Moonbear]

Here in the US, the right to free speech is fundamental but with limits. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can yell "theater" in a crowded fire station.

Well, really, you can still yell "fire" in a crowded theater too, and as long as everyone just stares at you and thinks you're bonkers, all is good. If, however, a stampede causing injury to people and damage to property immediately follows, you can be held responsible for the damages caused by your action of shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's an important distinction that your freedom of speech isn't restricted, but rather that your freedom comes with responsibility.

 

[misgfool]

Of course it's applicable. How does the preference of country factor in?

Just my two cents.

(Forgive me for opening the racial example can-o-worms, but...)

Unfortunately our lines are all full and your apology has been placed in queue. We shall process your request as soon as possible. No seriously, we are cool.

However, I'm not an english native and could only identify this "can-o-worms" as

The Can-O-Worms is an odourless, user friendly system that allows anyone to participate in recycling...

Really?

In the 60's, blacks wanting to eat in "regular" restaurants were told: "if you don't like it, no one's taking away your right to leave."

You can see that their rights are indeed violated despite the fact that they could merely go elsewhere.

I'm not sure about the 60's as I hadn't materialized yet, but if I remember correctly entrepreneurs have the right to choose their clients. Of course any reasonable one doesn't say no to money.

To the mentors ,I know you have thought long and hard about closing this thread, i all so know you have powers to discriminate from what is right from wrong, i hope you will allow this debate to continue as i think human resonsability is important.

Sir, pull yourself together. We shall expose these false gods you call "The Mentors" and let reason and sound judgment reign once more.

Multiquote as many people's posts as you want, but quote the last one.

Look jimmysnyder, I did it just like you always told me.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm not sure about the 60's as I hadn't materialized yet, but if I remember correctly entrepreneurs have the right to choose their clients. Of course any reasonable one doesn't say no to money.

i guess you've never heard of a little thing called the Interstate Commerce Clause.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

However, I'm not an english native and could only identify this "can-o-worms" as

The Can-O-Worms is an odourless, user friendly system that allows anyone to participate in recycling...

Really?

To open a can of worms means to discuss an unpleasant topic.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not sure about the 60's as I hadn't materialized yet, but if I remember correctly entrepreneurs have the right to choose their clients. Of course any reasonable one doesn't say no to money.

In the US, almost all businesses are considered places of http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12181.text.html. If your business falls under this category, then you do not have the right to refuse service to anyone on the basis of race, creed, national origin, or a few others I can't recall.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not really sure what you mean by this term 'do gooder'. I mean, I know what I mean by it, but the way you use it makes little sense. To me, a 'do gooder' is more referring to discrete acts by an individual.

"You should stop using zat word. I do not sink it means what you sink it means."
-Inigo Montoya

I think it's a divided by a common language thing.
In UK English - a do gooder is a self appointed authority who wants to restrict what you can do for your own good, the "won't someone think of the children" effect.

So a common headline is: council 'do gooders' ban children from throwing snowballs (in case they get hurt). It also applies to groups calling for censorship of TV / films etc.
It's normally used as a derogatrary term.

Ah. Oh.

 

[OmCheeto]

This might explain why there is so much confusion in this tread.

The Kansas definition:

Back where I come from there are men who do nothing all day but good deeds. They are called phila... er, phila... er, yes, er, Good Deed Doers.

I believe that Wollie's "Do gooders" would be referred to as "mothers" on this side of the Atlantic:

Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle!
Ralphie's mother: No, you'll shoot your eye out.

And I really need to clean my glasses:

...and I can tell you that sailors didn't bother to blush after 16 weeks of boot camp.

I had to read this sentence twice, as the first time I read "flush".