Extent of freedom of speech

Dwarf.Shortage

Listening to the radio yesterday and they had a guy on who was a campaigner on the no side of the same sex marriage referendum complaining about how the no side are being vilified and painted unfairly as archaic and ignorant (I am providing this for the sake of context but my question is meant generally rather than with respect to any specific issue.) The presenter put it to him that same sex couples were being denied the right to express their love in the same way heterosexual couples can, to which he replied (paraphrasing here but substantive is correct.)

"Well it's my opinion that legalising same sex marriage will be to the detriment of Ireland's future and my right to hold that opinion without being vilified or treated like an idiot is also being violated."

My immediate reaction to that (to the point that whilst alone in the car I actually argued with a man on the radio for the first and hopefully only time in my life) was that he was bemoaning the violation of a right which does not exist. I would agree that one should be absolutely free to hold any opinion they wish but as far as I'm concerned you have absolutely no right to do so unchallenged and if someone produces this sh**e about "it's just my opinion so it can't be wrong" it's a fairly clear warning sign that the individual in question is either quite ignorant or a sheep to the opinion of others.

How would others stand on this? when it comes to social issues should we be allowed hold our opinions in peace, no matter how obtuse they may be or in doing so do we make ourselves a fair target for those who believe otherwise. In my opinion if you're unwilling to be challenged on your beliefs and defend them you should hold them silently.

pmasterson95

If its against PC or the majority your ****ed.
Otherwise your grand.

Dwarf.Shortage

pmasterson95 wrote: »

If its against PC or the majority your ****ed.
Otherwise your grand.

UKIP are neither PC nor in the majority but they are willing to stand over the views they hold, for this I would respect them even though I wouldn't vote for them.

wp_rathead

Freedom of speech =/= freedom to speak unchallenged

stimpson

It's the mark of a free society that people can challenge your opinions, no matter how idiotic or bigoted or Catholic.

Señor Fancy Pants

You will always have freedom of speech if you keep what you want to say in your own head.

Manach

stimpson wrote: »

It's the mark of a free society that people can challenge your opinions, no matter how idiotic or bigoted or Catholic.

or snide village atheist

kneemos

Pretty sure under broadcasting rules the presenter was obliged to argue the opposing viewpoint.

He doesn't sound the sharpest.

Dwarf.Shortage

It has just occurred to me that it was wishful thinking for this thread to turn into a debate with a group of people characterised by their unwillingness to enter into a debate, thread is going to be pretty one sided.

Links234

https://xkcd.com/1357/

pablomakaveli

Freedom of speech as i always understood it was freedom from the government preventing you expressing your views,thought, opinions etc. Not freedom from being called out as an idiot by your fellow citizens or freedom to be an abusive arsehole

4zn76tysfajdxp

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

It has just occurred to me that it was wishful thinking for this thread to turn into a debate with a group of people characterised by their unwillingness to enter into a debate, thread is going to be pretty one sided.

Some arguments simply don't have two equally valid sides, such as this one.

super_furry

You have the right to your own opinions, thoughts and beliefs and to express them. Everyone else has the right to think you're an arsehole.

shruikan2553

Well there's 2 issues. If what one person says is as valid as another and are people entitled to think something.

For the first, no. Just because you think, believe or have an opinion it doesnt make it valid or right.
Person A can think you can drive from Dublin to Galway in 5 minutes. Person B thinks it takes 2.5 hours. Person B gets out a map, measures the distance and calculates how fast you would need to go in order to cover the distance in 5 minutes, a speed far faster than any car can manage.
Is person A's opinion just as valid? No, he literally pulled it out of nothing while person B has explain his view rationally with facts.

For the second, is person A entitled to think that he is still right? Of course. Is he entitled to tell everyone that it only takes 5 minutes without anyone calling him an idiot? No.

El Weirdo

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Person A can think you can drive from Dublin to Galway in 5 minutes.

Man, these idiots really get on my fucking tits.

Gbear

wp_rathead wrote: »

Freedom of speech =/= freedom to speak unchallenged

Freedom of speech as a principle does not just apply to the law.

The idea on which freedom of speech is based isn't just that you should be free to say whatever you want because **** everyone else's opinions.
The point is that there is value in having open arguments in good faith, even if the person you're arguing with is actually a dope or their opinion is bollocks.

That value might not exist for the person talking ****e, because they might be incapable of properly engaging with your arguments or will refuse to do so and you yourself mightn't gain a whole lot, because the shallowness of the argument might not have challenged any of your beliefs to any great extent, but there might be someone halfway between the two parties arguing that can get some value from the argument.

This problem encapsulates the biggest problem with the whole "PC" thing and why I get royally pissed off with the narrow-minded, short-sighted and wilfully ignorant dopes who dismiss free speech when that speech is unpleasant as "the right for you to say nasty things".
It's completely missing the point.

By giving people a forum to say things that might be unpleasant or stupid, not only can you publicly fight those opinions to the benefit of all - an insular racist coaxed into the open where reality can better penetrate his blockade of ignorant waffle, or maybe someone who holds some minor prejudices but hasn't really challenged them, or even an avowed crusader against racist bigotry getting a perspective on why people believe silly and dangerous things - you also guarantee a certain degree of self-reflection and avoid the stagnation of ideas.

If an idea has merit it doesn't need the government to enforce it by law. However, once it is enforced by law or even by social convention, it stops being challenged to the same extent and unless we're arrogant enough to believe we've everything figured out, that's a dangerously short-sighted approach to have.

Everyone's human, so you can hardly expect them to engage with every loon they come across on the street, and I've engaged in plenty of ad hominem hypocrisy in this very post (albeit, not directed at anyone in particular) but it's important to recognise the principle of why it's a good idea to at least try and argue honestly, even with people you think are insane, dangerous or whatever.

That's not to say I disagree with the post I'm replying to completely - plenty of people like to play the victim card when they're challenged on their bull****. But it's important to recognise that that isn't always the case.
While you might feel confident you're taking the moral high road on the issue you're arguing about, if you're resorting to abusing the person, even if that's a fairly reasonable reaction, you certainly aren't taking the high road as far as the argument goes but rather allowing yourself to be dragged into the muck.

bb1234567

To me its shocking that a group of people who are fighting to deny another marginalised group of people the same rights as them are even given any ground to stand on. You don't get to say why you think other people shouldn't have rights, its utterly ridiculous and I don't care how much he moans about his rights or freedom of speech if he has no valid reason to vote against gay marriage then he has no point and you're wasting your time arguing with him.