Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

OFKU0 · 11-19-2003, 05:58 PM

You're totally correct in your assertions and the question really is about everyones interpretation of morality. What makes the issue of morality so dicey in regards to free speech and censorship is the abundant progression of change that affects us all.

We grow, we change. We change ideals and opinions and there in society changes in every facet of life. Look back 10,20 30 years and see how public opinion has changed across the board.

As for your 'hate speech' analysis , I agree. Unfortunately when a culture is targeted by an individual or group, there is also the opportunity to exploit and use their victimhood as a stepping stone to a level of power, or can profit through again, in rebuttal form by slandering the said individual or group.

So what is the difference when one group is libel of racism through free speech while the other exemplyfies the example to gain support and relays the same ignorances? We can't censor the victim cuz that would look like piling on. If we censor or admonish the response, are we still guilty of blowing off the victim?

I'm not advocating people or groups should have rights to promote hate speech but by the same token people should have the right to factually say what they believe,be it right or wrong. (accordingly) But that is the root of the problem of free speech. Someone will always feel that they or their ideals are being attacked.

I think there are intelligent, observant forums of debate where people can express themselves. The question is how much rhetoric is feasible to sustain a dialogue with out sinking to the level of reciprocal ignorance.

As for censorship. It is a personal quandry as to the level something should be censored. Who decides? Those who have the most to gain on either side of the fence.

11-19-2003, 05:58 PM	#13 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	You're totally correct in your assertions and the question really is about everyones interpretation of morality. What makes the issue of morality so dicey in regards to free speech and censorship is the abundant progression of change that affects us all. We grow, we change. We change ideals and opinions and there in society changes in every facet of life. Look back 10,20 30 years and see how public opinion has changed across the board. As for your 'hate speech' analysis , I agree. Unfortunately when a culture is targeted by an individual or group, there is also the opportunity to exploit and use their victimhood as a stepping stone to a level of power, or can profit through again, in rebuttal form by slandering the said individual or group. So what is the difference when one group is libel of racism through free speech while the other exemplyfies the example to gain support and relays the same ignorances? We can't censor the victim cuz that would look like piling on. If we censor or admonish the response, are we still guilty of blowing off the victim? I'm not advocating people or groups should have rights to promote hate speech but by the same token people should have the right to factually say what they believe,be it right or wrong. (accordingly) But that is the root of the problem of free speech. Someone will always feel that they or their ideals are being attacked. I think there are intelligent, observant forums of debate where people can express themselves. The question is how much rhetoric is feasible to sustain a dialogue with out sinking to the level of reciprocal ignorance. As for censorship. It is a personal quandry as to the level something should be censored. Who decides? Those who have the most to gain on either side of the fence. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.