Freedom of Speech

  • Thread starter Lisa!
  • Start date
  • #26
Lisa!
Gold Member
620
96
Well I think freedom of thought could be protected by protecting the freedom of speech. For example by having the independent media.
And the freedom of thought could be seriously threatend if people wouldn't have the freedom of speech. You can't say someone has the freedom of thought when he recieves wrong information about most of thing(his country and the world) and he can't challenge the new ideas and even be aware of them.
 
  • #27
selfAdjoint said:
Did I say, or even imply, that it was? The connection of the CPUS to the USSR was (a) obvious at the time (from the slavish following of the ever-twisting party line by its leaders), and (b) amply documented by evidence available since the USSR fell. I said NOTHING about marxism or communism in general.
But I WAS talking about communism (or even socialism) in general. I said nothing about the CPUS in particular. I guess I misunderstood your argument. Perhaps you thought I was inferring there were no instances of Soviet affiliation among the persecuted? Needless to say, I was not. I'm unsure of the point in your response, sorry.
 
  • #28
arildno said:
Since thoughts are necessarily free (no one can control them), there is no sense in which the protection of "freedom of thought" is a meaningful phrase.
I disagree. Our thoughts are being controlled all day every day - just not necessarily by government. You fancy a Big Mac? Chances are, that inclination was not as spontaneous as it felt. Media exists for the most part to control thoughts. Propaganda likewise. And, of course, targetting a particular philosophy to imfringe on human rights will certainly make that philosophy less attractive.

Furthermore, restrict the speech of one generation, you restrict the thoughts of the next.
 
  • #29
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,025
134
El Hombre Invisible said:
I disagree. Our thoughts are being controlled all day every day - just not necessarily by government. You fancy a Big Mac? Chances are, that inclination was not as spontaneous as it felt. Media exists for the most part to control thoughts. Propaganda likewise. And, of course, targetting a particular philosophy to imfringe on human rights will certainly make that philosophy less attractive.

Furthermore, restrict the speech of one generation, you restrict the thoughts of the next.
There's a difference between influencing and controlling.
Your point is, however, highly important.
 
  • #30
arildno said:
There's a difference between influencing and controlling.
Very true, but the point to influencing thought is to exert some amount of control on the way people think. Look at the afore-mentioned hatred of communism in America. Was this spontaneously arrived at by each individual in the commie-bashing majority, or was it an effect of propaganda? 100% control is not possible, true, but enough control can be imposed via effective influence to manifest the desired effect.

It's analogous with policing. You can't make someone adhere to law, but you can influence them by making transgressions in others or your own past transgressions less attractive. Thus you can, to desired effectiveness, control people's actions. Likewise you can make other actions attractive, such as introducing benefits to getting married. Similarly you can make certain thoughts and philosophies more or less attractive.

It's not 100% effective. If someone was a secret communist in the McCarthy era, to the point where nobody could have guessed it, then they slip under the net. But if they were that secretive then they are of no consequence, so the desired level of control has been achieved.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Freedom of Speech

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Z
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
25K
P
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
4K
Top