Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Can "free speech" be limited by ideology?

Should communists, jihadists, and white supremacists have free speech? To what extent?

If they're not threatening people or advocating for violence, is their speech protected?
33person · 26-30, M
They should be allowed to make arguments for their positions, but all threats of violence and attempts to organize violence should be taken seriously
Speedyman · 70-79, M
We are now getting to the stage where even at universities which should be bastions of free speech, certain speakers are not allowed as they are not politically correct enough and might challenge the students to think. I mean, if people like Germaine Greere can be banned because her opinions are not politically correct enough, what hope is there for the rest of us?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Sicarium Most of those are pretty narrow. Sweezy was faculty and the interference came from the state. The rest were at public universities (and really public, not like the University of California system - but actually owned and administered by the state) and used the role of the state as basis of the first amendment argument.

But that made for interesting reading, and was good info, thanks.
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@QuixoticSoul Sweezy was a guest lecturer.

And yes, there's a difference between state-funded and private. Truly private universities can be more self-regulated.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Some of us do remember the time when universities were bastions of free speech for everybody@QuixoticSoul
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@SW-User No.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@SW-User Nah, you're just projecting now. But that's exactly what you would do since you're a propagandist, dishonest, and an extremist.

Run away now.
I call that a hate speech not a free speech. We are all entitled to be hateful but in my opinion it is when it crosses over into someone else’s path that I become intolerable. Well it can get in others’ way. I find that to be abusive.
Well QUOTE me because I’m busy. @Sicarium
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@Spoiledbrat Your own reading comprehension failure wasted your time.

You just want to play games. Hate speech isn't a real thing. I stand by my first reply, you've said nothing worth listening to. So I'll stop wasting both our times. Be more honest next time.
Thank you for not quoting me because you know I did not say that. I also stand by what I said. Hate speech stands apart from free speech and speech that’s just simply hateful. It’s great talking to you. @Sicarium
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Freedom of speech is always a line quoted by others who see other countries in the world crackdown, imprison, torture or kill those who say dissent against the ruling regime.

Within the defined points of this question and the framing from it's author, you can see how the term is limited by what the author deems 'acceptable'.
And THAT'S the problem !

Communists; Jihadists and White supremacists are the examples given here, but even these would be considered questionable since Communism only exists in patches throughout the world, Jihadists and white supremacists are essentially the same.
Yet there's no recognition of that.

And we ALL have our limits.
Subjects and positions for which NO amount of explanation will EVER make them considered acceptable.
So where does that leave us ?
Free speech but only if.....?
Free speech provided that....?
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@SW-User Doesn't mean [b]YOU[/b] want them to be silenced.
Doesn't apply to everyone does it.
SW-User
@Picklebobble2 well that’s why I asked the question. I want to know if other people think they should be silenced. Some people do because they consider it “hate speech” or “treason” or a threat against national security.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@SW-User Hate speech/treason/national security threat.....ALL terms used when folk in certain positions DON'T want something spoken of.
Thus a restriction on free speech
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
Yes, as long as they aren’t calling for violence.

But the rest of us should mock them mercilessly.
SW-User
@QuixoticSoul Agreed.
reflectingmonkey · 51-55, M
although it might seem counterintuitive I believe that only free speech can prevent the spreading of destructive and regressive ideologies while trying to censor them forces them into the shadow where they develop amongst its believers, unchecked and without constructive criticism. a funny example would be the KKK. once feared because they gathered in secret and developed into a myth surrounding their power and influence, the KKK lost its feathers when they started getting invited to talk shows on TV and looked completely ridiculous. in this way, when I personally have a debate or argument with someone, I let them speak first and make sure they have put all their arguments on the table, then I proceed to expose and dissolve all their arguments one by one until nothing is left. either that or I find myself unable to do so which means I might have to reconsider what I think in the light of new information. in respectful confrontation of ideas the more solid and sound ideas will be the ones to survive.
One of the fundamental traits of true freedom is that it is protected for ALL, especially those you disagree with...

If you start denying people rights because you don't agree with them, who gets to decide, and where is the line? Block a white supremacist, then next you have to block SJWs for the same kind of speech. After that, you might as well block people on the opposite side of your ideology, which is true fascism regardless of ideology.

How long before before something you believe or say is outlawed? And if you are defending the freedom of everyone, who will defend yours when you need it?

Of course this does not include speech that leads to actual physical harm.
@Spoiledbrat but what about the views you hold that others may not agree with? What happens when you are forced to be silent?

I tend to see it this way... As long as they aren't physically harming or promoting harm to others, let a racist speak. That way they are out in the open and everyone can see what a moron they are.

Plus our rights do not come from man or the government, therefore what gives either the right to take them away?
It’s one thing to let a person merely speak versus a speech that’s full of hate. I also want to point out a physical encounter is not the only way to hurt someone. People can be tormented emotionally as well. Also I think very few speeches fall into the category of a hate speech. @PrivateHell
@Spoiledbrat what you say has merit, though there is no actual legal definition of hate speech in America. Abuse of any type is not a right, and falls outside of "free speech" already.

We have a natural right to speak our mind, no matter how unpopular our opinion is. What we don't have the right to, is to live without being offended. That simply isn't possible or realistic.

If you ban someone from saying they hare minorities, women or gays, that doesn't take away their opinion. It just makes them resentful and more determined to hold that opinion.
Sicarium · 46-50, M
Yes, they should have free speech, right up until the point where they're calling for direct violence, just like everyone else.
Just dont yell theatre in a crowded firehouse
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Graylight · 51-55, F
Of course it is, in the US. It's the prohibition of the expression of ideology we fight against so strongly.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
melissabraces · 31-35, F
I don’t find it easy being white 💁🏻‍♀️
Why so? @melissabraces
Goralski · 51-55, M
Of course it is

 
Post Comment