Daily Discussion II

[goodarmcindy]

I just want to say thanks to everyone who participated yesterday. Feel free to contribute a question/quote for future discussion as well.

Topic: Freedom

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. – Noam Chomsky

How far should we allow "freedom" in our society - can we ever justify restricting the freedom of a group/person while allowing it for another?

Is it right, or practical, to allow total freedom of press, association and speech?

[Mitch]

No, there is no justification for restricting the freedom of a group/person while allowing it for another if the oppressed group has done nothing objectively harmful to others.

That is not specific enough at all, I apologize. The answer in my head is sort of complex and I can't articulate it--the brief answer to the question is simply "no, there is no justification."

And it is right to allow total freedom of press (as long as the information does not turn into blatant lies), it is right to allow freedom of speech (although I think there does exist a non-tolerable degree of the "freedom"), and it is right to allow freedom of association (unless violent, obviously).

[loveisdead]

It's never ok to restrict a certain group of people's freedom. It sets an awful precedent that says we can silence the freedom of any particular group we want for whatever reason we want.

Freedom of the press is tricky. I don't think the press should be allowed to be posting articles/pictures they've gotten by hiding out behind trees, or shooting through someone's window...you get the idea. The press' freedom in America seems to have the right limitations to it.

Freedom of speech is an absolute must.

And I agree with what Mitch said about freedom of association. So long as it isn't violent, rock on.

[J.C.]

I don't think much about freedom of speech. IMO it's an easy issue and not one you're going to find too much disagreement on, at least in the framework of it. There are obviously isolated cases that push the envelope, but for the most part it's easy for everyone to accept/grasp.

I usually think about more controversial 'freedom' issues; prostitution, assisted-suicide, drugs, polygamy, etc.

[goodarmcindy]

I don't think much about freedom of speech. IMO it's an easy issue and not one you're going to find too much disagreement on, at least in the framework of it. There are obviously isolated cases that push the envelope, but for the most part it's easy for everyone to accept/grasp.

I usually think about more controversial 'freedom' issues; prostitution, assisted-suicide, drugs, polygamy, etc.

In that case you are really questioning the limits of 'freedom' in general which could link to Mill's Harm Principle:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant"

In this situation do we have any freedom - is there any action that truly only affects ourselves?

[asmolitor]

i think the easiest way i've ever heard to reply to this, is "plurality, not purity."

[Nevuk]

The last free speech argument we had here was massive. It's difficult to argue either way without slippery slope fallacies galores. I agree with Chomsky (obviously), but feel that most people who say they would die to support this/etc. are frequently the first ones to be willing to give it up.
Westboro Baptist church is a good measure of this facet. I personally find them hilarious (yes, I'm a sick, twisted individual) but many people I've known who claimed free speech as unalienable right were all for restricting the speech, defining where they can say things.

An anecdote. My university has a "free speech zone". I don't really think they realize that this implies that free speech is only allowed within this area. This area is about 100-200 ft squared. Frequently hate mongering pastors are there, complaining about gays. (Apparently my University is known as being a prime area for gay people to attend. Or at least the homophobic community spreads that rumor about us...) Most people are of the opinion that you shouldn't engage them in conversation, as it just encourages them. I disagree, it doesn't seem to make a difference either way, and frequently it's an opportunity to vent and rage at them about things neither of you control. However, it's just one large echo chamber. The same effect was achieved when a friend set up a bongo drum by them. No one can hear anything anyone says, because they're too busy talking.