nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay: Freedom of speech (view source)
Revision as of 05:29, September 7, 2008
, 05:29, September 7, 2008→A few thoughts: Reply to DirkB: wording was a struggle
Doesn't this ''completely'' negate the entire "offensive art (which usually is an expression of a view) is not covered by freedom-of-speech" thing? I think you're using "express(ion)" a bit too loosely because you now use it both for "expression of a view" (covered) and "artistic expression" (not always covered). --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Doesn't this ''completely'' negate the entire "offensive art (which usually is an expression of a view) is not covered by freedom-of-speech" thing? I think you're using "express(ion)" a bit too loosely because you now use it both for "expression of a view" (covered) and "artistic expression" (not always covered). --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
::: I admit that I struggled a bit with the wording of this, and that might go part way to explaining the problems you had with it.
::: As far as the racism bit is concerned, what I had in mind is that if someone wants to argue, for instance, that "black" people are intellectually inferior to "white" people, such as by producing the results of research into this, they should have the freedom to do so. But they should not (a) treat such people as inferior by discriminating against them, nor (b) talk about them as though it is accepted that they are inferior (e.g. "Niggers wouldn't know how to add two and two"). I'm not sure if that makes it much clearer, but if not, perhaps you could explain how you would differentiate. Would you argue that anybody can say what they like about groups they might think to be inferior, or at the other extreme, would you argue that a researcher who ''claims'' to have evidence that Negroes are inferior to non-Negroes is not even allowed to argue his case?
::: I think that the question of who decides what is acceptable or offensive is a separate question. Societies ''have'' been deciding such things for a very long time, and there are various ways that they can be decided.
::: On your last point, I'm not sure that I'm clear on your concern, but part of the answer may be what I said about struggling with the wording, and in particular my use of the word "express" (and variations). It's really the same point as saying that it's okay to argue that swearing is okay, but not not okay to swear. Artwork is not an argument (putting a case).
::: I'm open to suggestions on how I can word the essay more clearly.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
::It's an interesting essay Philip. I think the first section can be summed up this way - freedom of speech has two important accepted, historical restrictions. First, the nature of certain speech must be truthful when the consequence of falsehood can cause harm (libel, slander, falsely yelling "fire" when there is none). Second, in a society based on laws, it is acceptable to discuss or even advocate actions that are illegal to promote change, but that does not make illegal acts legal, and inciting others to commit illegal acts can't be allowed either.
::It's an interesting essay Philip. I think the first section can be summed up this way - freedom of speech has two important accepted, historical restrictions. First, the nature of certain speech must be truthful when the consequence of falsehood can cause harm (libel, slander, falsely yelling "fire" when there is none). Second, in a society based on laws, it is acceptable to discuss or even advocate actions that are illegal to promote change, but that does not make illegal acts legal, and inciting others to commit illegal acts can't be allowed either.
::Conservapedia can be thought of as an open wiki, but it's essentially a private organization with a low barrier to entry, and its leadership reserves the right to limit any speech that depends on using its resources. I can go to Wikipedia or a street corner and say that CP is wrong about "X", but I can't expect to put that up as a post here and not be judged, blocked or even banned for it. Speech here is only as free as the leadership condones it, and that is the essence of a private organization. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:50, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
::Conservapedia can be thought of as an open wiki, but it's essentially a private organization with a low barrier to entry, and its leadership reserves the right to limit any speech that depends on using its resources. I can go to Wikipedia or a street corner and say that CP is wrong about "X", but I can't expect to put that up as a post here and not be judged, blocked or even banned for it. Speech here is only as free as the leadership condones it, and that is the essence of a private organization. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:50, 6 September 2008 (EDT)