6 ms·

No, I am dumb, since clearly you are not like me I would love to know what are the 6 solid reasons to permanently deprive the whole population of basic freedom

No, I am dumb, since clearly you are not like me I would love to know what are the 6 solid reasons to permanently deprive the whole population of basic freedoms.Because this is not the case of "I killed a burglar who pulled out a gun on me so he forfeited his right to freedom". Even if you strongly disagree with a position, if that position is censored, you are impoverished because of that, society is impoverished. Grievance must be vented openly, otherwise you push the fringe(and not so fringe) groups underground.

drchopchop 6y ago
Should child pornography be legal? Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Doxing of private information? Those are all "positions", in your view.
- cambalache 6y ago
  I cannot believe you consider sexually abusing children a freedom you need to give up. Same for creating panic in a crowded room. Jesus, at least come up with better examples, like playing your instrument full volume at midnight, running naked in the street or taking a bath in a public fountain (well that is permitted in some places)
  - chickenpotpie 6y ago
    If you don’t understand the point someone is making please ask follow up questions instead of choosing to interpret it in a way that you can accuse them of being a pedophile
    - cambalache 6y ago
      Apply that advise to yourself then, I didnt accuse him of being a pedophile. I specifically wrote that he was saying (as he was) that the prohibition of child pornography curtails freedom. It does not. So I would suggest you to read better before playing a virtual cyber cop.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- iphorde 6y ago
  Obscenity and alternative points of view are two different things. It is sad we live in a society that is unable to distinguish between the two.
  - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
    There isn't a bright line between the merely offensive and the "obscene". Even the supreme court couldn't do any better than "I'll know it when I see it". And for that matter, different cultures define obscenity in very different ways. Which one is the objectively correct way?
    - iphorde 6y ago
      Expressing an opinion is not obscenity. Showing images for provocation is obescenity. The I know it when I see it argument is ridiculous. The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. California that obscenity is content that is without socially redeeming value to that which lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Now you can argue the points of what has literary value, but the written word has always had literary value, no matter how grotesque. We don't burn books in this country.
      - confidantlake 6y ago
        If I draw a stick-figure and label it The Prophet Muhammad should that be banned? After all my drawing skills are terrible and it is likely to provoke people. But that doesn't seem very free to me.
        iphorde 6y ago
        Given the Supreme Court has said that would have artistic value, you can do what you want.
slg 6y ago
Here are 6 solid examples of "buts" we have on freedom of speech in the US. 1. You can't publish child porn. 2. You can't publish copyrighted work. [EDIT: For which you don't have the rights. I thought that was sufficiently implied.] 3. You can't defame another person. 4. You can't threaten someone. 5. You can't use your speech to invade someone's privacy. 6. You can't use obscenity freely. And this is just freedoms of speech and isn't even including the whole controversial money is equal to speech opinion. Freedoms and rights are rarely binary. There is often a spectrum and there are often complexities regarding where your rights end and mine begin. All of the above (with maybe the exception of number 6) involve one person using a right to take away someone else's rights. As a society, we have decided to side with that other person in these cases.
- cambalache 6y ago
  1. You are not giving up any freedom for not being able to sexually abuse children. Jesus, dont be obtuse just to gain fake Internet points. When I talk about Freedom are things inherent to the dignity of human condition, usually written in documents like the universal declaration of human rights or the constitution. 2. You can, people do it all the time. You cannot publish it if you dont own the rights same way you cannot enter my house if you are not invited. What supposed freedom you are renouncing to? 3. Same as 2 4. Same as 2 5. I dont have any idea what is that supposed to mean. 6. In TV, I supposed you are not, at your home oh yes you can. In the street unless you are being a prick that is rarely if ever enforced. Human freedom does not mean,"I will treat the universe like my personal minecraft game" it means, "These rights are universally agreed to be indispensable for the human condition and we will agree to gran them universally"
  - slg 6y ago
    1. The prohibition extends beyond cases of sexual abuse. Computer generated child porn without any actual victim is still illegal. 2, 3, 4 - I don't know how "people do it all the time" is supposed to be a defense. People jaywalk all the time too. It doesn't invalidate the law. The fact is these forms of speech are illegal and people get in trouble for them all the time. 5. People have a right to privacy and you can't use your freedom of speech to infringe on that. For example, I can't publish photos of you that I captured from a camera in a public restroom. 6. Yes, you are right this doesn't apply in your home. However it does apply in several public spheres. In most of this country, women can't even take off their shirt in public. You are right that obscenity laws aren't universally enforced, but this is a common charge levied against undesirables. >Human freedom does not mean,"I will treat the universe like my personal minecraft game" it means, "These rights are universally agreed to be indispensable for the human condition and we will agree to gran them universally" But these examples prove we don't "grant them universally". We grant them conditionally as long as you don't use them to interfere with the rights of others.

drchopchop 6y ago

Should child pornography be legal? Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Doxing of private information? Those are all "positions", in your view.

cambalache 6y ago
I cannot believe you consider sexually abusing children a freedom you need to give up. Same for creating panic in a crowded room. Jesus, at least come up with better examples, like playing your instrument full volume at midnight, running naked in the street or taking a bath in a public fountain (well that is permitted in some places)
- chickenpotpie 6y ago
  If you don’t understand the point someone is making please ask follow up questions instead of choosing to interpret it in a way that you can accuse them of being a pedophile
  - cambalache 6y ago
    Apply that advise to yourself then, I didnt accuse him of being a pedophile. I specifically wrote that he was saying (as he was) that the prohibition of child pornography curtails freedom. It does not. So I would suggest you to read better before playing a virtual cyber cop.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
iphorde 6y ago
Obscenity and alternative points of view are two different things. It is sad we live in a society that is unable to distinguish between the two.
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  There isn't a bright line between the merely offensive and the "obscene". Even the supreme court couldn't do any better than "I'll know it when I see it". And for that matter, different cultures define obscenity in very different ways. Which one is the objectively correct way?
  - iphorde 6y ago
    Expressing an opinion is not obscenity. Showing images for provocation is obescenity. The I know it when I see it argument is ridiculous. The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. California that obscenity is content that is without socially redeeming value to that which lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Now you can argue the points of what has literary value, but the written word has always had literary value, no matter how grotesque. We don't burn books in this country.
    - confidantlake 6y ago
      If I draw a stick-figure and label it The Prophet Muhammad should that be banned? After all my drawing skills are terrible and it is likely to provoke people. But that doesn't seem very free to me.
      - iphorde 6y ago
        Given the Supreme Court has said that would have artistic value, you can do what you want.

slg 6y ago

Here are 6 solid examples of "buts" we have on freedom of speech in the US. 1. You can't publish child porn. 2. You can't publish copyrighted work. [EDIT: For which you don't have the rights. I thought that was sufficiently implied.] 3. You can't defame another person. 4. You can't threaten someone. 5. You can't use your speech to invade someone's privacy. 6. You can't use obscenity freely. And this is just freedoms of speech and isn't even including the whole controversial money is equal to speech opinion. Freedoms and rights are rarely binary. There is often a spectrum and there are often complexities regarding where your rights end and mine begin. All of the above (with maybe the exception of number 6) involve one person using a right to take away someone else's rights. As a society, we have decided to side with that other person in these cases.

cambalache 6y ago
1. You are not giving up any freedom for not being able to sexually abuse children. Jesus, dont be obtuse just to gain fake Internet points. When I talk about Freedom are things inherent to the dignity of human condition, usually written in documents like the universal declaration of human rights or the constitution. 2. You can, people do it all the time. You cannot publish it if you dont own the rights same way you cannot enter my house if you are not invited. What supposed freedom you are renouncing to? 3. Same as 2 4. Same as 2 5. I dont have any idea what is that supposed to mean. 6. In TV, I supposed you are not, at your home oh yes you can. In the street unless you are being a prick that is rarely if ever enforced. Human freedom does not mean,"I will treat the universe like my personal minecraft game" it means, "These rights are universally agreed to be indispensable for the human condition and we will agree to gran them universally"
- slg 6y ago
  1. The prohibition extends beyond cases of sexual abuse. Computer generated child porn without any actual victim is still illegal. 2, 3, 4 - I don't know how "people do it all the time" is supposed to be a defense. People jaywalk all the time too. It doesn't invalidate the law. The fact is these forms of speech are illegal and people get in trouble for them all the time. 5. People have a right to privacy and you can't use your freedom of speech to infringe on that. For example, I can't publish photos of you that I captured from a camera in a public restroom. 6. Yes, you are right this doesn't apply in your home. However it does apply in several public spheres. In most of this country, women can't even take off their shirt in public. You are right that obscenity laws aren't universally enforced, but this is a common charge levied against undesirables. >Human freedom does not mean,"I will treat the universe like my personal minecraft game" it means, "These rights are universally agreed to be indispensable for the human condition and we will agree to gran them universally" But these examples prove we don't "grant them universally". We grant them conditionally as long as you don't use them to interfere with the rights of others.