#FreedomOfSpeechMustBeAbsolute

[Ken Kaneki]

We all know the Charlie Hebdo incident. Also a lot of people have threatened the makers of South park. People have even expressed anger at Russell Peters. Salman Rushide's work, "The Satanic Verses" has earned him the hatred of many, he was even not allowed to attend a literature festival. There are countless examples and the reasone are many, but none of them are sufficient. I believe in free speech, even when it is offensive to me. Following is a compilation of some extracts.

The beauty of freedom of speech is that as an ideal, it fosters advancement in every facet of human expression. Unshackled, exceptional members of mankind are free to soar, and free to debate anything.

Those who believed the world is flat would have kept us from traveling its corners. Those who believed the sun was a god and its rays were a holy embrace are probably dead from skin cancer. People who felt filmmaking is a sin would never have allowed the world to enjoy the magic of cinema.

There*is something holy to everyone in the world. Any advancement mankind has made has been offensive to at least one person, and you can’t limit these freedoms of human expression if those offended are many and wield sticks.
"Piss Christ," a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition. Or if that is not good enough for you, how about the art of Chris Ofili, a prize-winning English painter who is best known for his paintings incorporating elephant dung. One of his paintings, The Holy Virgin Mary, depicted a Black Madonna surrounded by close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, and elephant dung (naturally).These were formed into shapes reminiscent of the cherubim and seraphim commonly depicted in images of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But they should be considered slander right ?
If the only downside to this is that certain members will misuse this freedom to hurt the feelings of others, then it must be taken as an unfortunate side effect. While anyone has the freedom to say anything they want, you have the freedom to decide not to consume the product of their*freedom of expression.

Trying to decide what limitations to place on the freedom of speech is like climbing a very slippery slope. It is as futile as two men with opposing views trying to decide where an eagle they own is allowed to explore. While the first man prefers that their bird not be sent towards the mountains, the other prefers it not to fly into the woods. Each limitation is respectively important to each man, and each limitation limits the vital information the two can gain about their geographical surroundings. Rather than keeping the pet sulking at home, why not allow it to travel to both locations? Perhaps the eagle will be more at risk during this task but it is better than the alternative of living in ignorance.

Consider this moment in time, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) remains*unchallenged*by those under its rule because it controls the freedom of expression with a tight fist. Tomorrow ISIS could rule that all of its followers must wear pink bunny rabbit ears and hop around the battlefield, and its territory would look like it was celebrating a very violent version of Easter.

The problem with curtailing freedom of expression is that no one deserves the supreme power of making this decision. History has shown that those in charge of setting the bar have placed these limitations in line with their own beliefs and agendas. There is no one with the morale authority to create such boundaries . The only morale boundary is to have no boundaries at all.

Right to free speech is essential. However free speech is often not tolerated even on NB and infractions and bans are issued. Even when you think somebody's freedom of speech is hurtful, you have the freedom to decide not to consume the product of their freedom of expression. #FreedomOfSpeechIsAbsolute.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean say what you want without consequence.

 

[Ken Kaneki]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean say what you want without consequence.

I expected you to miss the point of the whole thing. And yes it does mean that you can say what you want without consequence. Otherwise Free Speech is not Free. Read again

 

[Mad Titan Thanos]

no Media report all kind of false BS.

non information is better than misinformation.

 

[Melanin]

I understand what you mean and I do agree that freedom of speach is essential to the make-up of our actual society but this is an internet forum and before you joined you checked a little box that said you agreed with the specific given terms and conditions (which included a guideline of rhectoric allowed).

But I wouldn't completely disagree that the mods be taking it too little too far..

 

[Ken Kaneki]

I understand what you mean and I do agree that freedom of speach is essential to the make-up of our actual society but this is an internet forum and before you joined you checked a little box that said you agreed with the specific given terms and conditions (which included a guideline of rhectoric allowed).

But I wouldn't completely disagree that the mods be taking it too little too far..

Rules can be changed and amended. Rules are not absolute but Human Freedom is.

 

[Punk Hazard]

I expected you to miss the point of the whole thing. And yes it does mean that you can say what you want without consequence. Otherwise Free Speech is not Free. Read again

I didn't miss the point. Freedom of speech means you should be free to project your thoughts, opinions, art etc. as you want. It does not mean you can say or project whatever you want without any consequences.

Let's look at Salman Rushide. People being offended and angry at his Satanic Verses isn't an infringement on his freedom of speech. Was his work not still able to be submitted/published/however it was released? He was able to express himself, but that doesn't mean people have to like it. Him not being able to attend the literature festival isn't an infringement on his freedom of speech. The people behind the festival does not want to be associated with his work, so they have the right to say "Please don't attend our festival." That's no more an infringement on freedom of speech as someone deciding not to be friends with someone because they said a bunch of racist comments.

A key part of this is where it says offending people is just an unfortunate side effect of freedom of speech that you must accept. The same applies for the other side of the coin; if I must accept that someone said something that has offended me and I can't stop them, then they have to accept that they have offended me and can't tell me not to be. That is the unfortunate side effect the speaker must accept.

You are free to say what you want to say. You are not free to tell people how to react or respond.

Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want, not that what you say is free. It's the same as a free market/freedom of purchase. You have the freedom to purchase things that you want, but that doesn't mean what you want to purchase is free.

 

[Mad Titan Thanos]

Rules can be changed and amended. Rules are not absolute but Human Freedom is.

rules are and must be absolute humans can´t have freedom to do whatever they want.

 

[Melanin]

Rules can be changed and amended. Rules are not absolute but Human Freedom is.

Yes "Laws" can be changed and amended but you agree to follow their "Rules" which are subject too the sites creator (which is within the law).

 

[Ken Kaneki]

Let's look at Salman Rushide. People being offended and angry at his Satanic Verses isn't an infringement on his freedom of speech. Was his work not still able to be submitted/published/however it was released? He was able to express himself, but that doesn't mean people have to like it. Him not being able to attend the literature festival isn't an infringement on his freedonm of speech. The people behind the festival does not want to be associated with his work, so they have the right to say "Please don't attend our festival." That's no more an infringement on freedom of speech as someone deciding not to be friends with someone because they said a bunch of racist comments.

Really ? You would know better I guess. Because I was at the festival and majority of people wanted to interact with him. But what do I know ?

A key part of this is where it says offending people is just an unfortunate side effect of freedom of speech that you must accept. The same applies for the other side of the coin; if I must accept that someone said something that has offended me and I can't stop them, then they have to accept that they have offended me and can't tell me not to be. That is the unfortunate side effect the speaker must accept.

You are free to say what you want to say. You are not free to tell people how to react or respond.

Really now? So Terrorists bombing Charlie Hebdo was justified, because I am allowed free speech but I must face how people respond to free speech right ?

rules are and must be absolute humans can´t have freedom to do whatever they want.

I disagree.

Yes "Laws" can be changed and amended but you agree to follow their "Rules" which are subject too the sites creator (which is within the law).

Doesn't mean you can't question them. No questioning -> No advancement -> No change.

 

[Melanin]

Doesn't mean you can't question them. No questioning -> No advancement -> No change.

Oh no, I'm the most progressive person you'll meet.

Question away..

 

[Caliburn]

I love it how you all the way at the end suddenly jump to the mods.

Essentially you are saying that everyone is allowed to scream out any thought that pops up in their heads immediately regardless of whether it's highly offensive, racist, sexist etc. You are saying that everyone is allowed to spread the most filthiest lies about other people, causing their reputations irreversible damage or even worse just because they are allowed to say whatever they want.

Go to Jeruzalem and scream "Heil Hitler" and "death to the Jews" and see how that works out.

Freedom of speech was never meant to mean that you can just blurt out anything you want. Everyone who thinks that, needs a serious reality check as they have no clue what the hell they're saying. Absolute freedom of speech would mean the acceptance of racism, sexism, discrimination etc. while our current society is trying to remove this completely. So a society that wants to remove these things, but uses "absolute freedom of speech", is inherently contradictory to itself. That's a hypocrite society.

The notion of absolute freedom of speech is inherently contradicting itself, it collapses on each other as how can a society function when people are allowed to say that white people are superior, that black people are superior and to say that you are allowed to say one of them but the other not? How is as judicial system supposed to function properly if everyone is allowed to say and even do whatever they want as why would "freedom of speech" be limited to words? There are people who let their 'fists do the talking'. If you do not count that as 'freedom of speech', it means you just put a limiter on your supposed absolute freedom, making it not an absolute freedom at all.

The real essence of "freedom of speech" has always been that it has to happen within certain boundaries. It's very tricky to define these boundaries, but that there have to be boundaries, that much has always been certain. What you describe is borderline anarchy. Let the world burn as long as I can insult the crackers and their family that I hate just because they had the gall to do what they were supposed to do.

 

[Mikeuhsomething36]

Freedom of speech is more hurtful than bad, people complain about free speech but don't see how it plays as a double edge sword, if freedom of speech was absolute, we would have anarchy. Because free speech leads to free ideas, which leads to free questioning, which leads to free subjugation. Take a child for example, if a child was taught to speak however he/she wants, the child becomes unruly and revels in their freedom however limiting them keeps them in check. Human beings aren't predictable creatures, one false move could set one person off, and it only takes one to start pandemonium to inspire others through what? Not free action, but free speech. Philosophers like Francois Voltaire believed in freedom of speech due to the fact that he was deprived of it in France until moving to England did he discover such a practice. However his way doesn't quite work, though influential, freedom of speech is great! But absolute freedom of speech is practically absolute anarchy, Shenk V. U.S is another one, if Shenk spoke and was allowed to speak as he did, the U.S would probably be under siege at this point, people are not just inspirational through actions alone, they inspire through words, and it is those words that inspire actions. If absolute freedom of speech was protected, you, have no idea, what type of pandemonium will ensure. Absolute freedom of speech shouldn't even be favored by speech lovers, Mankind has not grown to a point where we can tolerate such things without acting like unruly beasts, if Narutobase has absolute freedom of speech, this wouldn't be Narutobase anymore, absolute freedom of speech is loved primarily by anarchists, because absolute freedom of speech will lead to other things being absolute, words are power, use them wisely.

 

[Avani 🥈]

We all know the Charlie Hebdo incident. Also a lot of people have threatened the makers of South park. People have even expressed anger at Russell Peters. Salman Rushide's work, "The Satanic Verses" has earned him the hatred of many, he was even not allowed to attend a literature festival. There are countless examples and the reasone are many, but none of them are sufficient. I believe in free speech, even when it is offensive to me. Following is a compilation of some extracts.


Right to free speech is essential. However free speech is often not tolerated even on NB and infractions and bans are issued. Even when you think somebody's freedom of speech is hurtful, you have the freedom to decide not to consume the product of their freedom of expression. #FreedomOfSpeechIsAbsolute.

You just exercised your freedom of speech. Congrats O great keyboard warrior!

Now the question is whether I should be bound by those cursed NB rules or just start throwing out insults at you all using all kind of personal info I learned about you as a mod , and then twisting it and adding extras to it ( the way you guys do) and call it freedom of speech?

The kind of freedom you are so eager for- it should be for us too, I hope. Or is it just selfish one sided irresponsible childish demand to indulge in rude, crude and indecent behaviour without any repercussion for yourself?

Do what you like. If you consider it speech that is. Show us how different you are from everyone.

There you go. Threatening me already, you exemplify dictatorship.

What a hypocrite!

So you want freedom just for yourself and want to deprive others if it doesn't favour you and cry dictatorship if someone asked if this "freedom of speech" you demand will be extended to them? Do you even know the meaning of words you are using?


You are the one trying to dictate. You are trying to make rules for us to follow without taking any responsibility of your own or any binding on yourself.

 

[Flakez]

I expected you to miss the point of the whole thing. And yes it does mean that you can say what you want without consequence. Otherwise Free Speech is not Free. Read again

One of the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, it just means no one can stop you from saying it, but that doesn't mean you won't suffer the consequences when and if you say something offensive, racist, sexist etc. By your logic this world should be anarchy, I can be racist and misogynistic and express that in a very vocal way, but you can't do anything because... that's freedom of speech? Really?

And in regards of NB and the mods... what you're basically saying is that we shouldn't censor anything, thus making rules obsolete and thus making us the mods uneccessery. ''So what let's just remove all mods because speech shouldn't be censored no matter how offensive it is..'' This is your post in a nutshell.

 

[Ken Kaneki]

Freedom of speech is more hurtful than bad, people complain about free speech but don't see how it plays as a double edge sword, if freedom of speech was absolute, we would have anarchy. Because free speech leads to free ideas, which leads to free questioning, which leads to free subjugation. Take a child for example, if a child was taught to speak however he/she wants, the child becomes unruly and revels in their freedom however limiting them keeps them in check. Human beings aren't predictable creatures, one false move could set one person off, and it only takes one to start pandemonium to inspire others through what? Not free action, but free speech. Philosophers like Francois Voltaire believed in freedom of speech due to the fact that he was deprived of it in France until moving to England did he discover such a practice. However his way doesn't quite work, though influential, freedom of speech is great! But absolute freedom of speech is practically absolute anarchy, Shenk V. U.S is another one, if Shenk spoke and was allowed to speak as he did, the U.S would probably be under siege at this point, people are not just inspirational through actions alone, they inspire through words, and it is those words that inspire actions. If absolute freedom of speech was protected, you, have no idea, what type of pandemonium will ensure. Absolute freedom of speech shouldn't even be favored by speech lovers, Mankind has not grown to a point where we can tolerate such things without acting like unruly beasts, if Narutobase has absolute freedom of speech, this wouldn't be Narutobase anymore, absolute freedom of speech is loved primarily by anarchists, because absolute freedom of speech will lead to other things being absolute, words are power, use them wisely.

People must not be trusted. Humans are unpredictable creatures. Humanity has not evolved enough. Really ? And freedom.of speech would lead to subjugation ? Dictators believed that humanity wasn't evolved yet. In fact many colonies in the past did too. Read 'White Man's Burden'. it was the reason the Britisher's gave to rule many countries. We have always been evolved or we will never be evolved.

Now the question is whether I should be bound by those cursed NB rules or just start throwing out insults at you all using all kind of personal info I learned about you as a mod , and then twisting it and adding extras to it ( the way you guys do) and call it freedom of speech?

Do what you like. If you consider it speech that is. Show us how different you are from everyone.

The kind of freedom you are so eager for- it should be for us too, I hope. Or is it just selfish one sided irresponsible childish demand to indulge in rude, crude and indecent behaviour without any repercussion for yourself?

There you go. Threatening me already, you exemplify dictatorship.

What a hypocrite!

So you want freedom just for yourself and want to deprive others if it doesn't favour you and cry dictatorship if someone asked if this "freedom of speech" you demand will be extended to them? Do you even know the meaning of words you are using?


You are the one trying to dictate. You are making rules without taking any responsibility of your own.

I said do what you must. If you consider it speech.

 

[Avani 🥈]

I said do what you must. If you consider it speech.

Nope - the moment I pointed out that it would be two way speech you reacted crying dictatorship and threats. So the logic says that you considered that similar behaviour as yours on our part a threat.

Funny how it works out with people making such demands. Always asking special privileges for oneself and denying the same simple right to others. You simply want power to do whatever want. But get upset when you see the responsibility tag attached to it.

 

[Ken Kaneki]

One of the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, it just means no one can stop you from saying it, but that doesn't mean you won't suffer the consequences when and if you say something offensive, racist, sexist etc. By your logic this world should be anarchy, I can be racist and misogynistic and express that in a very vocal way, but you can't do anything because... that's freedom of speech? Really?
.

You wouldn't have known racism or misogynism if people's voices were quashed. Majority does not always mean correct..Dictatorship doesn't mean that the decisions made by the few are correct. Voices, all types, should be heard. Then people should decide what is correct for themselves. Not majority not the dictators. Sure you may not agree or detest certain opinions, but those are still opinions and people can reject /accept it according to themselves. Nobody needs to decide for somebody else.

 

[Mikeuhsomething36]

People must not be trusted. Humans are unpredictable creatures. Humanity has not evolved enough. Really ? And freedom.of speech would lead to subjugation ? Dictators believed that humanity wasn't evolved yet. In fact many colonies in the past did too. Read 'White Man's Burden'. it was the reason the Britisher's gave to rule many countries. We have always been evolved or we will never be evolved.

I think you just nitpicked and not really read what I said, I explicitly said there is nothing wrong with freedom of speech, by your thread you're talking about absolute freedom of speech. And I'm well aware of the white man's burden, that's simple persecution at it's finest, that has nothing to do with what I am wholly talking about. Like I said I think you just nitpicked at my comment. And not all dictators persecuted their country because of "evolutionary reasons", Hitler for example wasn't looking for evolution, he was looking to purge of impure "Aryans", purging=/=evolution, Stalin was less infatuated with the total affairs of his citizens and more into his own image as "the man of steel", also you may want to look at how Hitler rose to power, it wasn't random, through his words alone, he was able to influence many, it took one, if we had that kind if absolute freedom of speech in America, it would be anarchy, an anarchy isn't a dictatorship. Also, Britain has never been a dictatorship just an fyi, the closest Britain has ever been was an absolute monarchy which is completely different from a dictatorship. And the reason British gave to rule was due to economic reasons, hence the popular tradition of mercantilism, militarism, and jingoist. Keep in mind before dictators rose to power, some used force, and others used sheer words to seduce the people, sheer words or should I say, freedom of speech. Like I said, freedom of speech isn't bad, absolute freedom of speech is. Hence why I find it peculiar that you didn't address my Shenk V U.S point and Voltaire point.

 

[Avani 🥈]

You wouldn't have known racism or misogynism if people's voices were quashed. Majority does not always mean correct..Dictatorship doesn't mean that the decisions made by the few are correct. Voices, all types, should be heard. Then people should decide what is correct for themselves. Not majority not the dictators. Sure you may not agree or detest certain opinions, but those are still opinions and people can reject /accept it according to themselves. Nobody needs to decide for somebody else.

What a guy! Says, "People should decide what's correct for themselves. Not majority not the dictators" and then complains that the owner and admins decided what was correct for themselves accordingly. Are they not included in your definition of "people"? Do they lose this title as penalty for making a site and having their own goals with it and must give in to guests and watch them destroy it?

You are not much convincing you know.

Anyway- I should leave. I notice that most people cannot handle it when I get into arguments and only resent it even if they were doing the same thing or worse.