Is it time to put a muzzle on free speech? page 5

[RitaRose]

Freedom of speech allows people to not only question the need for free speech but also to defend it.

Works both ways.

[Diana Renata]

So, it's okay to bully? slander? What about yelling *fire* in a theater, or *bomb* on a plane? There are some exceptions to free speech, wouldn't you say? If you knew saying a specific something would bring another person/group to violence against others, do you still have the 'right' to say it? Morally, ethically? IDK, some people have a short fuse (thinking about road rage here, not any group in particular). Whatever happened to *Discretion is the better part of valor*?

These riots are bullying. The very fact that a stupid, poorly made video brings people to a murderous rampage reflects poorly on those doing the murdering, does it not? If one is so sensitive that a video incites violence, it is THEIR shortcoming, not the creator of a video (which I still say is merely an excuse, and not the ACTUAL reason for the riots on our embassies.)

We have 2 separate points here. The first is how radical Muslims react to videos, cartoons, and any sort of perceived "slander" towards their religion. They cut off heads to protest somebody accusing them of cutting off heads. It's, at its core, childish, at the very least. There is no defending that kind of behavior, in any sane manner. Perhaps next time I am offended by an Obama bumper sticker, I shall shoot the driver of the car? After all, they offended me with their hideous sticker! Maybe they shouldn't have put it on their car.

The second point, the attacks on our embassies and the murder of an Ambassador. This had nothing what so ever to do with a poorly made video. It was planned, and timed for September 11th as part of an ongoing war. It's nothing short of a slap in the face for which we should rightfully bomb the ever living snot out of them, turning the entire region into an epic sheet of glass.

[ecole66]

These riots are bullying. The very fact that a stupid, poorly made video brings people to a murderous rampage reflects poorly on those doing the murdering, does it not? If one is so sensitive that a video incites violence, it is THEIR shortcoming, not the creator of a video (which I still say is merely an excuse, and not the ACTUAL reason for the riots on our embassies.)

We have 2 separate points here. The first is how radical Muslims react to videos, cartoons, and any sort of perceived "slander" towards their religion. They cut off heads to protest somebody accusing them of cutting off heads. It's, at its core, childish, at the very least. There is no defending that kind of behavior, in any sane manner. Perhaps next time I am offended by an Obama bumper sticker, I shall shoot the driver of the car? After all, they offended me with their hideous sticker! Maybe they shouldn't have put it on their car.

The second point, the attacks on our embassies and the murder of an Ambassador. This had nothing what so ever to do with a poorly made video. It was planned, and timed for September 11th as part of an ongoing war. It's nothing short of a slap in the face for which we should rightfully bomb the ever living snot out of them, turning the entire region into an epic sheet of glass.

If I were not already married I would ask for your hand in marriage. Great post!

[JoanieL]

If I were not already married I would ask for your hand in marriage. Great post!

lol - I was thinking the same thing when I read her post.

In the end, we're all responsible for our own actions. No one can "make you" kill someone. Every wife beater in the world claims, "She made me hit her." It's a lame excuse in the singular and it's a lame excuse for the mob mentality.

We teach little kids that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me." If we expect little kids to get it, surely we should expect the same impulse control from adults.

[Urban Forager]

[QUOTE=Diana Renata;953428

It's nothing short of a slap in the face for which we should rightfully bomb the ever living snot out of them, turning the entire region into an epic sheet of glass.[/QUOTE]

You may get just what you are calling for.

[Nady]

Well, I've read this thread several times. I've learned that some here think they have the freedom of speech so they can call me names, but I don't have the freedom of speech to ask questions. Guess I misunderstood what free speech is all about.

[cori93437]

lol - I was thinking the same thing when I read her post.

In the end, we're all responsible for our own actions. No one can "make you" kill someone. Every wife beater in the world claims, "She made me hit her." It's a lame excuse in the singular and it's a lame excuse for the mob mentality.

We teach little kids that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me." If we expect little kids to get it, surely we should expect the same impulse control from adults.

This. Anything else is ridiculous.
The only persons to blame are those who committed the crime...

[lissee]

In answer to the OP's question if we should censor people's content, I have a few questions of my own.

Where would it stop? If we censor one thing, it will lead to another.

Who would be responsible to oversee this project? We don't need another taskforce or Tsar of anything. We have a difficult time even monitoring the things we're supposed to, like bank regulations, drug companies, and food safety.

Would you have us become like China, where the internet is locked down and people chat to each other in code because the words they want to use are blocked by the system or would send up red flags that would end up having them tailed, harassed by police, and even jailed. (This is my personal opinion, only based from things I've read in the news. Sorry have to make that disclaimer.)

Would you have us end up so that every single thing we upload, whether it be a photo on Flickr, or a short youtube video on how to make braised ribs, go into one ginormous queue where some worker is paid to deny or approve what you wanted to post? Can you imagine the backlog, or the potential abuse of power to censor other things indiscriminately? How would any agency ever keep up?

Then we have the whole government/civil liberties angle to address. To have every aspect of your life scrutinized for a possible mis-step is very much intrusive and invasive (and that's what you're suggesting, because how else would you ensure that no one broke this law in order to prevent something like the events Libya from happening again). This scrutinization would break the fundamental principles that the United States of America were founded upon.

And where would it stop, this monitoring? Personally, I don't think it would.

[bloodorchid]

that story is called 1984

but seriously nady, where do you think censorship would stop?

[BONZ]

No, it's not the time to put a muzzle on free speech.

Now, is the time to put a muzzle on foreign occupations and wars.

Okay?! Jesus frickin H. Christ.

^^BRAVO^^ haha

Wow, we've really brought them out in this thread. Jingoist and Apologist and Lions and Tigers and Bears, OH MY!!!!

Blaming the "speaker" in the case of violent outrage is akin to blaming the woman with the short skirt at a rape trial. Blaming (all) "muslims" for riots which result in murders is like blaming (all) "christians" for crimes against humanity because the Lord's Resistance Army conscripts child soldiers and forces them to rape and murder their mothers. There's what sounds good when you're waving the flag for your team,... and then there's the truth.

Someone mentioned earlier about cutting off the guy from your neighborhood in traffic if you knew he'd overreact.... well obviously you'd only do it if you were looking for a fight, but that doesn't make it a criminal act. It just makes you a dumbass.

Should we self-regulate speech? Of course we should, it's a marker of civilized society in general and personal maturity specifically. Should you ask your government to regulate somebody else's speech? Who the hell do you think you are that you may ask someone else to do on your behalf what you have no right to do yourself?

That being said, there's freedom of speech but there's sure as hell no such thing as freedom from consequences. We all have the right to be an asshole, but we're all subject to the possibility of being punched in the mouth. This is the natural method of speech regulation in which we all weigh the consequences. I have the right to say it. You have the right to be offended. Neither of us have the right to physically assault each other, but it's a chance we both take. Mine in the saying, yours in the retaliation for what I said.