Please comment on the following npr debate surrounding our Freedom of Speech conducted by "Intelligence Squared U.S." What limits should be placed on our speech?
Upon listening to the debate, I was left deeply torn. On one hand, I have long been an idealistic advocate of free speech. I have personally made it my exercise my right to expression to its fullest extent whenever possible, and am adamant in my belief that all others should have the same right. However, after hearing the debate, I find myself siding with the more "pragmatic"-and seemingly less "romantic"-view of those in favor of some restrictions. The stirring examples on what hate speech can lead to struck me, especially with the reminder given of how anti-Semitic cartoons were an early stage of nazi movement. Given this, I now find myself bent more towards the pro-restriction side. I especially liked the notion that certain restrictions are needed to protect reputation, which in a civil society governed by law, is necessary for most interactions. Freedom of speech, while inalienable, should receive some restrictions, much like guns do under he second amendment. For in a society in which ones reputation precedes his presence, words may be as dangerous as bullets.
On another note, christopher hitchens anti-muslim rant at the very end was rather surprising, given the otherwise rather civil discourse up until then
I think free speech does come with the license to offend. There are too many cases to be settled on a case by case basis and it is not an effective or productive way to settle the matter. If people's speech was limited because someone found it offensive, nothing would be said or printed. People should be allowed to express their views. Our country is made of so many different groups with so many different sets of views and ideologies. Not everyone can be happy all the time and that is ok for the sake of our freedoms and rights.
There is no doubt that certain hate speech has had and can have immense consequences and social issues. Typically, I have largely been in favor of freedom of speech.. However, this debate has opened my eyes to some of the immense tensions that have arisen from the so-called right to offend. That said, I do think that there needs to be a certain level of censorship. To what extent? I'm not sure, and none of the opponents offered a clear idea of to what extent restriction should occur.
On a different note, I thought the gentleman for the proposition made a great point when he pointed out that restriction could be potentially more offensive. He used the example of the "n-word," claiming that substitution and restriction can be more offensive because they disallow one to feel the full meaning of the word, but rather think about it more, and thus feel perhaps twice the meaning of the offensive word.
I am pro freedom of speech and agree that freedom of speech comes with the license to offend. If freedom of speech starts to be regulated, it probably will go too far. Historical evidence shows that once the government gains power, it will never give it back. I do not trust others, especially those in the government, to make decisions on whether or not something is offensive enough to be censored.
Sometimes things are going to offend us and hurt our feelings. That is LIFE. Our human rights should not be taken away just because someone doesn't like what someone else is saying. While one speaker brought up Nazi Germany and how because of freedom of speech, Nazis got a voice and eventually WWII occurred, the same thing could happen by censoring speech. Opposing opinions to what the government says could start being censored and disaster would occur as a result. Censorship is a dangerous path to go on, and I would rather people offend me than be censored.
Freedom of speech does come with the license to offend. It is part of life to be offended and to say the wrong thing, but it comes with our rights. Instead of censoring, we should use hate speeches and other offensive speeches as learning experiences. People in oppressed countries pray for free speech and are put in jail or killed for speaking there minds. The US is a melting pot with various religions and ethnic groups. The founding fathers included freedom of speech because it was a fundamental issue that they fought for and to censor it is not the vision of a truely free nation that they had in mind. The thoughts on propaganda and Nazi Germany causing WW2 because they got the freedom to speak is a stretch. So many more revolutions and wars have been started because of the lack of freedom of speech. The Nazis would have risen to power even without freedom of speech because they were assembling underground years before they rose to power.
Free Speech should have the right to offend, if only for the fact that offensive content is subjective. What is offensive to one culture may be harmless to another, and if we were worried about offending anyone all of the time, we would never be able to say anything at all. Because no one can fairly decide where the lines should be drawn, no lines should be drawn at all. The allusion to Nazi Germany in the debate is a feeble attempt at sensationalizing a point. Nazi Germany was not an issue of Freedom of Speech run amok, it was an issue of a broken people bending to the will of a charismatic young politician. Far more trouble has arisen from countries without Freedom of Speech than countries with it.
I'm pro free speech even though at times it can cause unrest within society. The anti free speech debaters did point out some things that I never really thought about, but I feel like more times than not free speech is more beneficial to society than harmful.
I understand what happened in Germany is an example of what can happen if free speech is taken too far, but I think that we live in a time and in a country where the possibility of something like this happening is very much a stretch.
The exercise of free speech is what makes America such a great country. I do understand the side of the pro-restriction group especially with the example of anti-Semitism and the Islamic cartoons. However, I still believe a person should have the right to speak freely even if their speech is hurtful or untrue. Both sides make good points, but censorship is a slippery slope with no discernable end. Thus, I am pro-free speech.
I believe that freedom of speech is extremely important to have and one of the reasons why America is appealing to the oppressed in other countries. We are extremely fortunate to be able to have the right to openly voice our thoughts and opinions regardless of if they are considered offensive, unpopular, or of ill taste. Using the example in the clip, I believe there is no difference between the rights of Nazi party members and a pro-Israel group, for example. What allows one group the right to be able to openly express their opinions and the other group to be deemed uncivil. In order for freedom of speech to truly work, both sides of a conflict must have equal rights to voice their thoughts, regardless of which side the general public supports.
I believe that the right to speak freely should, probably must, include the right to offend. After all it is hard to speak openly without offending someone. No rational and fair limit can be placed on speech. Often times verbal controversy and insult is what leads to an understanding of others opinions and hopefully the finding of common ground. America is often viewed as the greatest nation in the world and the freedom of speech is a key element to that view. If free speech is limited or restricted it would be a big step backward from a societal and moral standpoint.
The freedom of speech is a right that we as Americans cherish. We have died fighting for it, and have engaged in battle to protect, support it and we do our best as a country to allow other people of the world to share this freedom. With any aspect of this important, there is controversy. Freedom of speech is some people's mind is both a blessing and a curse. Although the speech may be harmful, it is the only way that it can be fully exercised. limited people's speech will only limit how powerful we are as a country. everyone has the right, even if what they say is wrong in someone else's eyes.
I think that the right to speak your mind or protest should be cherished. We have built our country on the basis of freedom of speech and expression. However, the freedom of speech should be condemmed if there is moral hazard is present. Such as the Westboro Baptist nutjobs protesting Joe Paterno's funeral. They definitly are protected by the Constitution, but the mere thought of somebody pickited my father's funeral I would feel digusted and appalled. The morality of protesting a funeral is just wrong.
The great thing about this country is that we actually have freedom of speech and do not have restrictions on what we can say. American newspapers, magazines, and blogs are not monitored so voices can be heard and taken into consideration. I think that when governments start monitoring speech and "book burning",it is one step closer to a military state. What the United States of America's constitution Allows is the opportunity for it's citizens to learn and have a wide range of knowledge.
to be perfectly honest i don't think there should be strict limits on what someone says. as a child or teenager, yes it should be told what is wrong to say but when you grow up you should be able to express yourself through our most important form of self expression which is our voice. hateful words are not something that should be thrown out like candy but i do think we have the right to our own opinions and we should be allowed to share them freely. if you are intelligent enough to back up your statement like many of the people in the npr podcast were then you should have the right to say what you believe
I personally do not believe that the general American public should have strict restrictions placed on their Freedom of Speech. I think that by putting strict rules on our Freedom of Speech, we endanger ourselves to possible out comes like Nazi Germany that was mentioned in the debate. If the goverment puts to many restrictions on our rights, there will come a time when the foundation that our country is built on will become moot and flimsy.
Upon listening to the debate, I was left deeply torn. On one hand, I have long been an idealistic advocate of free speech. I have personally made it my exercise my right to expression to its fullest extent whenever possible, and am adamant in my belief that all others should have the same right. However, after hearing the debate, I find myself siding with the more "pragmatic"-and seemingly less "romantic"-view of those in favor of some restrictions. The stirring examples on what hate speech can lead to struck me, especially with the reminder given of how anti-Semitic cartoons were an early stage of nazi movement. Given this, I now find myself bent more towards the pro-restriction side. I especially liked the notion that certain restrictions are needed to protect reputation, which in a civil society governed by law, is necessary for most interactions. Freedom of speech, while inalienable, should receive some restrictions, much like guns do under he second amendment. For in a society in which ones reputation precedes his presence, words may be as dangerous as bullets.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, christopher hitchens anti-muslim rant at the very end was rather surprising, given the otherwise rather civil discourse up until then
I think free speech does come with the license to offend. There are too many cases to be settled on a case by case basis and it is not an effective or productive way to settle the matter. If people's speech was limited because someone found it offensive, nothing would be said or printed. People should be allowed to express their views. Our country is made of so many different groups with so many different sets of views and ideologies. Not everyone can be happy all the time and that is ok for the sake of our freedoms and rights.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that certain hate speech has had and can have immense consequences and social issues. Typically, I have largely been in favor of freedom of speech.. However, this debate has opened my eyes to some of the immense tensions that have arisen from the so-called right to offend. That said, I do think that there needs to be a certain level of censorship. To what extent? I'm not sure, and none of the opponents offered a clear idea of to what extent restriction should occur.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, I thought the gentleman for the proposition made a great point when he pointed out that restriction could be potentially more offensive. He used the example of the "n-word," claiming that substitution and restriction can be more offensive because they disallow one to feel the full meaning of the word, but rather think about it more, and thus feel perhaps twice the meaning of the offensive word.
I am pro freedom of speech and agree that freedom of speech comes with the license to offend. If freedom of speech starts to be regulated, it probably will go too far. Historical evidence shows that once the government gains power, it will never give it back. I do not trust others, especially those in the government, to make decisions on whether or not something is offensive enough to be censored.
ReplyDeleteSometimes things are going to offend us and hurt our feelings. That is LIFE. Our human rights should not be taken away just because someone doesn't like what someone else is saying. While one speaker brought up Nazi Germany and how because of freedom of speech, Nazis got a voice and eventually WWII occurred, the same thing could happen by censoring speech. Opposing opinions to what the government says could start being censored and disaster would occur as a result. Censorship is a dangerous path to go on, and I would rather people offend me than be censored.
Freedom of speech does come with the license to offend. It is part of life to be offended and to say the wrong thing, but it comes with our rights. Instead of censoring, we should use hate speeches and other offensive speeches as learning experiences. People in oppressed countries pray for free speech and are put in jail or killed for speaking there minds. The US is a melting pot with various religions and ethnic groups. The founding fathers included freedom of speech because it was a fundamental issue that they fought for and to censor it is not the vision of a truely free nation that they had in mind.
ReplyDeleteThe thoughts on propaganda and Nazi Germany causing WW2 because they got the freedom to speak is a stretch. So many more revolutions and wars have been started because of the lack of freedom of speech. The Nazis would have risen to power even without freedom of speech because they were assembling underground years before they rose to power.
Free Speech should have the right to offend, if only for the fact that offensive content is subjective. What is offensive to one culture may be harmless to another, and if we were worried about offending anyone all of the time, we would never be able to say anything at all. Because no one can fairly decide where the lines should be drawn, no lines should be drawn at all.
ReplyDeleteThe allusion to Nazi Germany in the debate is a feeble attempt at sensationalizing a point. Nazi Germany was not an issue of Freedom of Speech run amok, it was an issue of a broken people bending to the will of a charismatic young politician. Far more trouble has arisen from countries without Freedom of Speech than countries with it.
I'm pro free speech even though at times it can cause unrest within society. The anti free speech debaters did point out some things that I never really thought about, but I feel like more times than not free speech is more beneficial to society than harmful.
ReplyDeleteI understand what happened in Germany is an example of what can happen if free speech is taken too far, but I think that we live in a time and in a country where the possibility of something like this happening is very much a stretch.
The exercise of free speech is what makes America such a great country. I do understand the side of the pro-restriction group especially with the example of anti-Semitism and the Islamic cartoons. However, I still believe a person should have the right to speak freely even if their speech is hurtful or untrue. Both sides make good points, but censorship is a slippery slope with no discernable end. Thus, I am pro-free speech.
ReplyDeleteI believe that freedom of speech is extremely important to have and one of the reasons why America is appealing to the oppressed in other countries. We are extremely fortunate to be able to have the right to openly voice our thoughts and opinions regardless of if they are considered offensive, unpopular, or of ill taste. Using the example in the clip, I believe there is no difference between the rights of Nazi party members and a pro-Israel group, for example. What allows one group the right to be able to openly express their opinions and the other group to be deemed uncivil. In order for freedom of speech to truly work, both sides of a conflict must have equal rights to voice their thoughts, regardless of which side the general public supports.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the right to speak freely should, probably must, include the right to offend. After all it is hard to speak openly without offending someone. No rational and fair limit can be placed on speech. Often times verbal controversy and insult is what leads to an understanding of others opinions and hopefully the finding of common ground. America is often viewed as the greatest nation in the world and the freedom of speech is a key element to that view. If free speech is limited or restricted it would be a big step backward from a societal and moral standpoint.
ReplyDeleteThe freedom of speech is a right that we as Americans cherish. We have died fighting for it, and have engaged in battle to protect, support it and we do our best as a country to allow other people of the world to share this freedom. With any aspect of this important, there is controversy. Freedom of speech is some people's mind is both a blessing and a curse. Although the speech may be harmful, it is the only way that it can be fully exercised. limited people's speech will only limit how powerful we are as a country. everyone has the right, even if what they say is wrong in someone else's eyes.
ReplyDeleteI think that the right to speak your mind or protest should be cherished. We have built our country on the basis of freedom of speech and expression. However, the freedom of speech should be condemmed if there is moral hazard is present. Such as the Westboro Baptist nutjobs protesting Joe Paterno's funeral. They definitly are protected by the Constitution, but the mere thought of somebody pickited my father's funeral I would feel digusted and appalled. The morality of protesting a funeral is just wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe great thing about this country is that we actually have freedom of speech and do not have restrictions on what we can say. American newspapers, magazines, and blogs are not monitored so voices can be heard and taken into consideration. I think that when governments start monitoring speech and "book burning",it is one step closer to a military state. What the United States of America's constitution Allows is the opportunity for it's citizens to learn and have a wide range of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteto be perfectly honest i don't think there should be strict limits on what someone says. as a child or teenager, yes it should be told what is wrong to say but when you grow up you should be able to express yourself through our most important form of self expression which is our voice. hateful words are not something that should be thrown out like candy but i do think we have the right to our own opinions and we should be allowed to share them freely. if you are intelligent enough to back up your statement like many of the people in the npr podcast were then you should have the right to say what you believe
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe that the general American public should have strict restrictions placed on their Freedom of Speech. I think that by putting strict rules on our Freedom of Speech, we endanger ourselves to possible out comes like Nazi Germany that was mentioned in the debate. If the goverment puts to many restrictions on our rights, there will come a time when the foundation that our country is built on will become moot and flimsy.
ReplyDelete