Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do gooders

  1. Oct 28, 2008 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are you a do good er? a person that thinks freedom of speech is a given, even though this freedom of speech CAN be hateful and harmful.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2008 #2
    Doing good (as in do good er) is not a matter of thinking (as in thinks freedom of speech is a given), but of doing. I do think that hateful speech should be protected, but not harmful speech. That too is a matter of the difference between thinking and doing as hate is a thought, but harm is a deed.
     
  4. Oct 28, 2008 #3

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Otherwise, you'd just be a think good er.
     
  5. Oct 28, 2008 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  6. Oct 28, 2008 #5

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't see what doing good has to do with free speech.


    I do not believe that hateful speech should be protected. It's a pretty fine line I grant, to determine what's hateful and what's not, but I believe in the principle.
     
  7. Oct 28, 2008 #6
    I've got about 5 infractions that say I don't have freedom of speech.
     
  8. Oct 29, 2008 #7
    I think all forms of speech should be protected. There's no such thing as harmful speech since words can't harm you. There are harmful actions, but not harmful speech IMO.
     
  9. Oct 29, 2008 #8
    free speech is like sunshine. it lights your way, disinfects, and sends cockroaches scurrying. if you burn easily, wear a wide-brimmed hat.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2008
  10. Oct 29, 2008 #9
    hey wolfram, the missing part of my post was in reply to your derogatory "do gooder" insult.
     
  11. Oct 29, 2008 #10
    Incitement to riot is harmful speech.
     
  12. Oct 29, 2008 #11
    I don't consider that harmful speech, that's harmful action.
     
  13. Oct 29, 2008 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It was meant as an insult i agree, i too think there is a fine line between say, incitement to riot and just hateful speech, i think any one who protects extreme speech IS a do good er.
     
  14. Oct 29, 2008 #13

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As long as I'm not rioting all I'm doing is talking (or yelling maybe).

    Alternatively, you can accept the fact that speech is an action.
     
  15. Oct 29, 2008 #14
    i think you've got it exactly bassackwards about who's the do gooder here, but i support your right to be wrong.
     
  16. Oct 29, 2008 #15

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think it's a divided by a common langauge 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.
     
  17. Oct 29, 2008 #16
    I hate this thread. Hate HAte HATe HATE it.
     
  18. Oct 30, 2008 #17

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually, that was what I was going to point out.

    I do think hate-mongering is something that should not enjoy the benefits of free speech. Ernst Zundel for example should not have free reign to speak all his views publicly.
     
  19. Oct 30, 2008 #18

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's ok, jimmy. Hate posts are protected.
     
  20. Oct 30, 2008 #19

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually i guess there is some form of protection from hate mongers, i bet they will be investigated by one agency or another, but why let it go so far and cost the tax payer?
    Some of these people have even had police protection, may be this is a step to far.
     
  21. Oct 30, 2008 #20

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Because I think the censorship of them should be sanctioned by law.

    Otherwise, agencies could investigate them all they want but what can they do if it's legal?

    Well, that's a separate issue. That moves from speech into action. As a society, we would never allow a person to come to harm, regardless of how we as individuals feel about them. That would be worrisome. That would sew the roots of anarchy: allowing the people to mete out ad hoc justice.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Do gooders
  1. What do I do? (Replies: 1)

  2. What do you do (Replies: 15)

  3. What do YOU do (Replies: 37)

  4. What do I do with this? (Replies: 17)

Loading...