The right to free speech

[Nile577]

I have mixed feelings on this.

While it is available to me, I will make use of it. However, I think ‘rights’ assumes an inherent external protocol of civility which in reality may be non-existent. That is, ‘the right to free speech’ seems to posit that one may voice dissident views, but those views must be expressed through the mechanism of democracy. I see this as an attempt to compartmentalise viewpoints by assuming that they are all prepared to converse in such a climate. Is democracy itself a kind of a priori learned prejudice which defines and limits the way ideas are expressed?

Perhaps this is essential if one is to have any kind of meaningful debate? Perhaps one should simply pick a side and fight for it? If we apply the latter argument to artistic censorship, one might say: die for the artwork itself, not the simple right to create it.

In regards to freedom of the press, it seems to me this is of entirely subjective worth. If one agrees with the regime doing the censoring, it is perhaps simply a necessary step towards pursuing some kind of idealistic truth; if one disagrees with the regime it is outrageous censorship by an ‘evil,’ authoritarian state. Is it possible that ‘free-speech’ does not then posses any inherent worth as a concept in and of itself?

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts since my mind is not wholly decided on this issue.

 

[Nile577]

I realise this thread touches on issues presented here: http://ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225880 but I would be interested in talking about freedom of speech in particular.

If it is felt that they are too similar, feel free to amalgamate them or simply lock/delete this thread.

 

[derek]

I have mixed feelings on this.

While it is available to me, I will make use of it. However, I think ‘rights’ assumes an inherent external protocol of civility which in reality may be non-existent. That is, ‘the right to free speech’ seems to posit that one may voice dissident views, but those views must be expressed through the mechanism of democracy. I see this as an attempt to compartmentalise viewpoints by assuming that they are all prepared to converse in such a climate.Is democracy itself a kind of a priori learned prejudice which defines and limits the way ideas are expressed?

Perhaps this is essential if one is to have any kind of meaningful debate? Perhaps one should simply pick a side and fight for it? If we apply the latter argument to artistic censorship, one might say: die for the artwork itself, not the simple right to create it.

In regards to freedom of the press, it seems to me this is of entirely subjective worth. If one agrees with the regime doing the censoring, it is perhaps simply a necessary step towards pursuing some kind of idealistic truth; if one disagrees with the regime it is outrageous censorship by an ‘evil,’ authoritarian state. Is it possible that ‘free-speech’ does not then posses any inherent worth as a concept in and of itself?

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts since my mind is not wholly decided on this issue.

No, I think you've touched upon some interesting points. So I see no reason to move nor delete this whatsoever.

The part of your post I have highlighted, I would tend to agree with. I think democracy does, in some ways, enforce a structure upon our actions in which we must confine ourselves to. So, in essence, freedom of speech only goes as far as to voice agreement or disagreement, nothing more.

 

[infoterror]

However, I think ‘rights’ assumes an inherent external protocol of civility which in reality may be non-existent.

Big problem with rights is they're absolute, and thus come more quickly into irreconciliable conflict.

Similar to Pynchon's critique of boundaries as provocation entropy, cf. Mason & Dixon.

 

[Akirahito]

You make good points, but right to free speech,as you suggest it, may have roots in the psychological nature of our nation (and I assume you are referring to the United States). Most people have a political opinion, religious opinion, or what-have-you. Those opinions manifest themselves in opinions/beliefs that people express openly. However, people opinions and beliefs are largely biased, but mostly influenced. Influenced by parents, media, friends, and coming of age. Whatever opinion-based stimuli people respond to most is the kind of free speech you are going to get....for the most part. But there is much that can be said about that. Media, a medium one views and parlaying free speech is not so free....which itself is an issue, but also a sub-issue for the influence factor. For instance, the whole Florida voting debacle....only foreign media would print what American journalists dared not to. Personally, I think everyone should study many different perspectives and, based upon that, try to come up with their own.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't think there will ever be true freedom of speech because there will always be some things that are considered too dangerous to say, for whatever reason, by the authorities. I am in favour of everyone having freedom of speech because then people can show what they really think rather than appearing to be of the same opinion as the majority. A solution to the conflict that would arise from this might be that everyone should go and live in a community of people who share their views to the extent that their views are particularly incompatible with getting on with other people.

 

[Dän]

The only problem with freedom of speech, particually in Aus, is that people get offended when you express this freedom. Shall i bring up the Danish cartoons again?