EPTNotes of a Freedom Hater - Page 2
| Blogs > ZapRoffo |
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
| ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
If we are advanced enough to discern what is beneficial to our own good then it doesn't matter what ideas or things people publish, we are advanced enough to know they are false, damaging or wrong and can simply ignore them. There is no need to censor. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On November 11 2010 18:06 XeliN wrote: And Zap if society is advanced enough to make the distinction then there is no need for it's implementation. If we are advanced enough to discern what is beneficial to our own good then it doesn't matter what ideas or things people publish, we are advanced enough to know they are false, damaging or wrong and can simply ignore them. There is no need to censor. A consensus formed from the exchange of thought out ideas can get a good enough idea to justify some action, but that doesn't speak to individuals at all who can certainly be affected by the false/damaging/wrong or outright malicious and can cause harm by it. | ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On November 11 2010 18:01 ZapRoffo wrote: I don't propose just banning things based on people wanting them banned, it's based on outgrowths of aspects of our system of law, which we accept and submit to (in general). The action leading to another harmful action, I don't see why considering that should be disregarded. In some cases it certainly happens, and it takes more abstract and advanced thought to recognize, but I don't see anything that suggests we shouldn't take it into consideration. Isn't it why we try to reduce crime and improve standards of living in impoverished areas by working on improving education there rather than solely devoting more police? I don't think any of those you mention should be disallowed because the cost of disallowing them impinges on so many things like the foundation of arts, the foundations of personal philosophy and religious practice, etc. but disallowing particular books from being sold in general public places because they have cost to society in inciting law-breaking and direct harm to others in society but don't offer anything of value identified by any reliable source is completely different. I'm asking: isn't our society advanced enough that we can make this distinction? Also I never said old = irrelevant. What I'm saying is some things are borne out of necessity for their time or expressed in a certain way due to that necessity and then the situation changes and they are no longer as essential or no longer deal properly with complications that arise. I can point to many old philosophers and philosophies that are essential to modern thinking. Things change and we have to recognize what still applies and what needs tweaked or explored more closely. Everyone seems resistant to even consider this. Okay, so what standard are you applying? What do you mean by "outgrowths of aspects of our system of law, which we accept and submit to"? The core of my argument is that restricting freedoms in an arbitrary way is, well, arbitrary. And arbitrary restrictions on freedoms are always unfair for some class of persons. Remoteness should not be considered because it's arbitrary. I'm stating that your comment that the philosophies are old or born of a different time or under different circumstances are irrelevant. I quote, as I'm sure others also, for the purpose of making a point in a way superior than I am able. A comment about the circumstances in which the philosophies were developed is irrelevant in considering whether they still hold true today. Although what I'd most like an answer to is this: How would you propose a community decide what to censor? | ||
|
ImSkeptical
Australia51 Posts
To what end, does the freedom extend, is action. This is the easiest distinction to make. To argue that speech leads to action is understandable, but a distinction must be drawn, and this is such a brilliant distinction as it encourages self-education and constant critisism. Its not about a slippery slope to all of a sudden rejecting some new truth or reason, its about constantly seeking new truth and reason. | ||
|
DerHunter
Australia2 Posts
Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On November 11 2010 18:14 raviy wrote: Okay, so what standard are you applying? What do you mean by "outgrowths of aspects of our system of law, which we accept and submit to"? The core of my argument is that restricting freedoms in an arbitrary way is, well, arbitrary. And arbitrary restrictions on freedoms are always unfair for some class of persons. Remoteness should not be considered because it's arbitrary. I'm stating that your comment that the philosophies are old or born of a different time or under different circumstances are irrelevant. I quote, as I'm sure others also, for the purpose of making a point in a way superior than I am able. A comment about the circumstances in which the philosophies were developed is irrelevant in considering whether they still hold true today. Although what I'd most like an answer to is this: How would you propose a community decide what to censor? I'm applying the standard that one of the core values of our society is that we don't allow people to trample each other's rights and that we protect people, especially the helpless/children from abuses. I don't understand what's arbitrary about it. You can't drive faster than the speed limit because we conclude that that causes higher danger to others. Is the speed limit too arbitrary and restricts freedom too much? The harm that speech can do isn't arbitrary either, moral hazard is a well documented phenomenon in social sciences, and the words of the book are not very arbitrary either and are not aiming at artistic expression, encouraging and telling ways to do something that is deemed by law and by all reliable sources at the same time as harmful. Are you saying we can't recognize that that increases the possibility of child abuse? We can because we have the information and the mental capacity to see that. Is it arbitrary that we don't allow speech that incites violence? We see a clear link between speech and action there. Wrap your head around the fact that EVERYTHING WE DO IS LIMITED, so saying we can't move the limits around because that makes us not free is bunk. There is no freedom in the way you define it. It's meaningless to apply the concept because it's an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. Every law is created by us they are all arbitrary to some extent if that's how you want to look at it. Clinging to the idea that we can't do anything because of that is only consistent with believing in anarchy. We can become relatively more free or relatively less free, but that's it, you can't "lose your freedom." It never existed in that absolute sense. And you just said the exact same thing again, that I said old ideas are irrelevant. So once again I NEVER SAID THAT or implied it. I said sometimes they are of their time and apply more to then than now. Ben Franklin had no idea what dangers we would face today and what kind of freedoms we would have, so he could never have taken that into account. His statement is also an exaggeration that didn't even apply in his time. He gave up freedom to be able to kill his neighbor and subsequently decide his own life course and gained security by it. That happened to be a truly meaningless quote but one that helped support the ideology necessary at that time. Same with the 1st amendment. Congress makes laws that abridge freedom of speech and have for a long time. It's been adapted to reality, and we constantly decide our interpretation of it. There are many old ideas that are totally relevant, I can give large parts of Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, basically any influential philosopher that are huge parts of our ideas today. We decide by discussion, examining what our values as a society are and what limits us too much and what tramples other people's rights too much. With the level of information exchange available to us (unheard of in the past) we can do that. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On November 11 2010 20:33 ImSkeptical wrote: Zap you need to realise that one of the core ideas of liberty is that it was never ment to protect the majority. It is designed to uphold the rights of the minority. The majorty's ideas don't need protecting, they are the majority. But without free intellectual critisism the majority rules without critism. Yes we can all see instructional pedophilia is damnable on all accounts. But it is the majority's responsibility to examine it and reject it ourself, not to rule it burnable and cencored. To what end, does the freedom extend, is action. This is the easiest distinction to make. To argue that speech leads to action is understandable, but a distinction must be drawn, and this is such a brilliant distinction as it encourages self-education and constant critisism. Its not about a slippery slope to all of a sudden rejecting some new truth or reason, its about constantly seeking new truth and reason. It's also our responsibility to not put children in increased danger by allowing something that would logically increase the incidence of predatory behavior. The balance has to be discussed. How extreme are the minorities that need protection and how much danger does each pose. Is it your opinion then that all speech no matter what should be subject to protection then? Because currently the prevailing view and law do not agree and do make judgments on speech that leads to action. Should that be repealed? | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On November 12 2010 07:29 ZapRoffo wrote: I don't understand what's arbitrary about it. You can't drive faster than the speed limit because we conclude that that causes higher danger to others. Is the speed limit too arbitrary and restricts freedom too much? Are you saying we can't recognize that that increases the possibility of child abuse? We can because we have the information and the mental capacity to see that. Is it arbitrary that we don't allow speech that incites violence? We see a clear link between speech and action there. Why is the speed limit 100 when everyone drives 120-130 and does so rather safely? I don't know why it's "100" so I'll leave this one at that. My guess is arbitrary. Are you saying that you can know that this increases child abuse? It takes more then "mental capacity" to establish a definitive link between this book and increased child abuse. Saying "punching someone in the face will cause them pain" is much different then saying "punch Tom in the face!" | ||
|
ImSkeptical
Australia51 Posts
On November 12 2010 07:57 ZapRoffo wrote: It's also our responsibility to not put children in increased danger by allowing something that would logically increase the incidence of predatory behavior. The balance has to be discussed. How extreme are the minorities that need protection and how much danger does each pose. Is it your opinion then that all speech no matter what should be subject to protection then? Because currently the prevailing view and law do not agree and do make judgments on speech that leads to action. Should that be repealed? I admit i do not actually know the specific restrictions America has on free speech, I had some odd assumtion that America didn't have any restrictions other than maybe misinformation built into law. Ultimatly however, my argument is informed by a Millsian liberty which i still find pretty pursuasive even if not reflected in practice. The fact the the balance needs to be discussed is what I see as the main merits of supporting intellectual freedom. The fact that we see these minorties as extreme beyond logic, is why they need a certain level of protection of expression that is rescricted by direct harm it will cause to others. The concession made, is that we do put our children at risk. We do need to be watchful for dangerous ideas. This is a concession we make for the gains of intellectual freedom, the gains of supporting constant critisism. To say that we can clearly see an instance of a minority piece of information that will undoubtedly and only lead to the direct harm of others, I personally see as a claim too bold to make. I think that to restrict such information, shows a level of confidence in being able to assess information that it is not worth taking. I find it easier for it to be the responsibility of the individual to filter information rather than a group to censor what it deems unacceptable. It is understandable, that sacrificing skepticism of ones beliefs and assumtions for a greater level of safety is justifiable, but I personally value that skepticism over it. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States | ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On November 12 2010 07:29 ZapRoffo wrote: I'm applying the standard that one of the core values of our society is that we don't allow people to trample each other's rights and that we protect people, especially the helpless/children from abuses. I don't understand what's arbitrary about it. You can't drive faster than the speed limit because we conclude that that causes higher danger to others. Is the speed limit too arbitrary and restricts freedom too much? The harm that speech can do isn't arbitrary either, moral hazard is a well documented phenomenon in social sciences, and the words of the book are not very arbitrary either and are not aiming at artistic expression, encouraging and telling ways to do something that is deemed by law and by all reliable sources at the same time as harmful. Are you saying we can't recognize that that increases the possibility of child abuse? We can because we have the information and the mental capacity to see that. Is it arbitrary that we don't allow speech that incites violence? We see a clear link between speech and action there. Wrap your head around the fact that EVERYTHING WE DO IS LIMITED, so saying we can't move the limits around because that makes us not free is bunk. There is no freedom in the way you define it. It's meaningless to apply the concept because it's an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. Every law is created by us they are all arbitrary to some extent if that's how you want to look at it. Clinging to the idea that we can't do anything because of that is only consistent with believing in anarchy. We can become relatively more free or relatively less free, but that's it, you can't "lose your freedom." It never existed in that absolute sense. And you just said the exact same thing again, that I said old ideas are irrelevant. So once again I NEVER SAID THAT or implied it. I said sometimes they are of their time and apply more to then than now. Ben Franklin had no idea what dangers we would face today and what kind of freedoms we would have, so he could never have taken that into account. His statement is also an exaggeration that didn't even apply in his time. He gave up freedom to be able to kill his neighbor and subsequently decide his own life course and gained security by it. That happened to be a truly meaningless quote but one that helped support the ideology necessary at that time. Same with the 1st amendment. Congress makes laws that abridge freedom of speech and have for a long time. It's been adapted to reality, and we constantly decide our interpretation of it. There are many old ideas that are totally relevant, I can give large parts of Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, basically any influential philosopher that are huge parts of our ideas today. We decide by discussion, examining what our values as a society are and what limits us too much and what tramples other people's rights too much. With the level of information exchange available to us (unheard of in the past) we can do that. Freedom if speech does not have to be limited. Driving on the road is incomparable because it's not simply speech. Speech can never directly harm in the way that actions can. Speech is a direct manifestation of thought, and restricting speech is restricting thought. Also, as has been pointed out, speed limits are arbitrary. "I'm applying the standard that one of the core values of our society is that we don't allow people to trample each other's rights and that we protect people, especially the helpless/children from abuses." That's my point. The standard you're applying seems to be majority rules. You want to apply the moral values of the majority of the people at the detriment of the minority. Which suggests that if higher than 50% of the population believe something should be banned, it should be. You haven't explicitly stated the method by which speech should be designated as requiring limitation, so I'm just kind of inferring here. You'll have to let me know if I'm misunderstanding you. The law is arbitrary, and parliament creates law, and parliament represents the majority view (most of the time). As such all law is an arbitrary manifestation of the majority's will. I support an absolute freedom of speech because it guarantees that this arbitrary mechanism can never be applied to speech that can never cause a direct harm. In terms of the way governments have limited actions to protect its people, consider why alcohol and tobacco is legal and marijuana is not. Law is arbitrary. I have no problem with restricting actions that have a high likelihood of harm. They're actions, and actions are known to directly harm. Speech can only indirectly harm. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
I'm not applying the standard of majority rules at all, unless you claim that valuing the well-being of other people (especially ones who have no say in how society operates and are generally dependent) is only a majority standard and that we need to protect the rights of the minority specifically in their belief in doing that harm. And education can only indirectly reduce crime or human rights abuse in impoverished areas, so why do we have government policies that take that into account and do try to take an indirect course? Indirect doesn't equal not real. | ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
I disagree entirely that thought should be controlled, and speech is an expression of thought. That expression of thought is what ensures other arbitrary laws do not go too far in their limiting of freedoms, and ensures a level of criticism of laws perceived as unfair. Without freedom of speech, no fundamental counter exists to unfairness. You have STILL not explained the way by which a community would ban or limit speech. You claim that you're not applying majority rules, but the view of society as a whole can only be thought of as the view of the majority. Indirect assistance and indirect harm are very different concepts, but I'll touch on this. No, just because harm is indirect and remote does not mean it is not real. But to accept that the Court should consider remote harm would lead to results that unduly restrict an expression of thought. Consider this: I express that peanut butter is tasty. People hear and are influenced by my statement. People buy more peanut butter. A greater number of allergic reactions to peanuts occur due to the higher number of people with peanut butter in public. Several people die from the allergic reactions. Those deaths would not have occurred if I had not made the statement. Should I go to jail for making them because they indirectly caused harm? I state that cocaine should be legalized, and that the side effects are exaggerated in the media. People hear and are influenced. More people do cocaine. More people die. Should I go to jail? The government passes a new law that oppresses homosexuals. I make a speech documenting the many injustices of the new law. My speech causes a furor, and many people begin a riot, leading to the deaths of many police and citizens. Should I go to jail? Harm SHOULD NOT be the standard. Whether a statement should be banned should not be based on the probable harm or the actual harm it can indirectly cause, because of the essential fact that elected government cannot function in a fair manner without full freedom of expression. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
The method: the same one we use for general governing (from a US perspective), we elect representatives who in theory enact measures for the well being of the society that elects them (and act in accordance with the laws and philosophies of the country, such as to not unduly oppress minority opinions). And if they don't follow through, we elect different ones who will modify what's been done. And figures in the market (such as amazon) can influence the course as well. We can also use measures that are not a direct ban, such as we use on things that society in general finds harmful but has reasons to tolerate such as heavy regulations on cigarettes and alcohol and guns, which can mollify a good deal of the harm while still in this case allowing in some ways for viewpoints to be heard. What I'm saying is we can logically discuss this without falling into immediate danger of every minority right being stripped. What basis is there for this fear? There are so many groups and people who watch for our free speech and who watch politicians to make sure they act in accord with the principles they are meant and so many viewpoints heard and exchanged in our developed society that people would know to be wary if we even begun slightly to venture down that path. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Not overall; we have people who do smart things. Even the dumbest guy will make a smart decision in his life. The idea is to have people make smart decisions when it matters. This is the restriction of freedom, as well as the freedom to do the correct thing. Who gives a fuck when it doesn't matter all that much anyway?. This is the freedom to do things that don't matter. Yeah, I guess that's pretty restricted. But the thing is, when you decide to do something stupid that affects other people, you're restricting their freedom to do what they want. Which is a no-no. Things like homosexuality don't really matter. Two guys having sex won't do a goddamn thing to you, unless you're one of those guys and you don't like it. Guess what? We have a law that restricts that kind of behavior. It preserves your freedom to not have sex if you don't want to. The thing is, we don't have a fail-proof way of deciding whether or not a particular class of actions will result in the infringement of other people's freedoms. There's the rule by the few, which is less prone to mass stupidity, and there's rule by the many, which is less prone to craziness (or just plain abuse of power) of the few. It's a no-win game, but we're doing the best we can. (There are fictional and historical societies where rule by a set of people who happen to be smart and rational are paradises. As well as democratic societies where the majority is smart and rational. Too bad we don't live in 'em today.) | ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On November 13 2010 16:14 ZapRoffo wrote: I agree that expression of thoughts like you detail is in need of protection, but I also am claiming that we can distinguish between any of those thoughts (which express ideas with logical backing as to why they are not in direct violation of the rights of others) and an expressed thought that directly encourages harm to and violation of rights of others that are under our protection and simultaneously encourages direct harm to those under our protection through a well understood psychological mechanism. It's not about silencing a viewpoint. A theoretical treatise on why pedophilia could be an acceptable practice and why it doesn't interfere with the rights and harm others would be a different animal. The method: the same one we use for general governing (from a US perspective), we elect representatives who in theory enact measures for the well being of the society that elects them (and act in accordance with the laws and philosophies of the country, such as to not unduly oppress minority opinions). And if they don't follow through, we elect different ones who will modify what's been done. And figures in the market (such as amazon) can influence the course as well. We can also use measures that are not a direct ban, such as we use on things that society in general finds harmful but has reasons to tolerate such as heavy regulations on cigarettes and alcohol and guns, which can mollify a good deal of the harm while still in this case allowing in some ways for viewpoints to be heard. What I'm saying is we can logically discuss this without falling into immediate danger of every minority right being stripped. What basis is there for this fear? There are so many groups and people who watch for our free speech and who watch politicians to make sure they act in accord with the principles they are meant and so many viewpoints heard and exchanged in our developed society that people would know to be wary if we even begun slightly to venture down that path. Err... Your method is exactly majority rules. And... alcohol and cigarettes are regulated by... taxes... A fine on speech then? So how is that different from how I said speech issues should be resolved via civil means and not criminal means? And... What basis is there to fear? Well... Take a look at ancient Rome or Greece, both nations, after speech limitations were put in place for the protection of the people, quickly devolved into a brutal suppression of minorities. Not to mention you're talking about the USA, where homosexuals are still not afforded equal rights. A country where Muslims are treated harshly. A country with triple digit deaths from a non-lethal weapon, the Taser. Yeah, I'm sure you Americans are great at handling power that can repress individuals in a fair manner. | ||
| ||
