The Couch

Freedom of speech?

Comments on Freedom of speech?

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 03/31/12 - 1:43 PM:
Subject: Freedom of speech?
This is triggered by many things which have been on my mind since last month.


First : Starjade's thread.




Second: I think that freedom of speech is just a phrase and it doesn't really exist in the world.

Third: I just want to know: What do you mean by freedom of speech?

Is it the freedom to say what you want to say in the manner you want to say it, or, it's just freedom to say what you want to say in a restricted manner.


Feel free to share your ideas.

Edited by Thinker13 on 03/31/12 - 1:49 PM
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 03/31/12 - 1:55 PM:

To take an example: Just exclude 'name-calling' or 'ad-hominem' and you can say anything you want to say on this forum. When you want to keep conversations civil as well as want to have freedom of speech, I don't see anything bad about it.

But if you believe that anything you want to say, no matter whether it is substantial in relation to your prepositions or not, should not be edited, no matter whether it includes insults or racial slurs or anything else, then it might be freedom of speech for you and so on.


I think, I pretty much made my question clear.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 04/02/12 - 10:27 AM:

A body can say what he likes, as he likes, when he likes.

He must understand, however, no one is obligated to listen or respond, or, if a response is given, he must understand the response may very well not be to his liking (up to, and including, an attempt to put a bullet in his head).

I say speak your mind, if you want: just prepare for the consequences.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 04/02/12 - 9:27 PM:

Speech is inherently free because it is fundamentally ambiguous; that is, speech, as a string of sounds/symbols, attaches itself to concepts merely by chance and not necessity. In short, it is the free association of sounds/figures with ideas. It IS free. It MUST be free.

To establish this in political terms, it means that words are just words, and insofar as there is no inherent value attached to words (as sounds) or concepts (ideas), there are no inherent moral barriers to the utterance of any type of speech. If it is possible to think it, it is possible to speak it. All speech ought to be freely spoken because all ideas ought to be freely conceived.

Only after an idea is conceived or a word spoken shall we assess the moral value of such, and, according to our socially defined rules (practical rules, not inviolate laws of nature), deem it worthy or unworthy of further expression.

But, since words are fundamentally sounds/figures, there should never be any barrier to their expression. For like the old saying, 'words can never hurt me'. Socially, what matters more is direct action, intentional harm, physical interference. These types of acts cause oppression, suppression, marginalisation, death, and all manner of violence, which begets more in kind. They are real and true barriers to peace.

Language is not of this kind.

A free society should be not concerned with thoughts or words. There is no such thing as a 'thought crime', for all thoughts that are possible, ought to be thought and expressed (this is the essence and purpose of art). Only actions and their governance are of importance. For no matter how much 'motivation' words can give, it remains perfectly true that no word, howsoever elegantly spoken, can CAUSE an action to happen in and through another person.

Words and speeches do not CAUSE actions.

Hence, speech should be free and actions moderated.

In a free society all manner of speech ought to be indulged, but only those actions that contribute to the good of society ought to be tolerated by law.

8)
JrnymnX
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2006

Total Topics: 12
Total Comments: 217
Avatar JrnymnX
Posted 04/04/12 - 2:10 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:

Words and speeches do not CAUSE actions.


They proceed actions.
They frame the intent of actions.
Actions are merely thoughts made manifest.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 04/04/12 - 5:42 PM:

JrnymnX wrote:


They proceed actions.
They frame the intent of actions.
Actions are merely thoughts made manifest.


How, exactly, does a thought become 'manifest'?

Thoughts don't necessarily proceed actions. Thoughts and actions can and often are independent, arising at different times, even if we tend to group them together (after the fact in reflection) thematically.

Neither is intent a thought. Intention is more pure and primal than thought.

Actions and intent are the objects of thought, after the fact.

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/04/12 - 10:43 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


How, exactly, does a thought become 'manifest'?

Thoughts don't necessarily proceed actions. Thoughts and actions can and often are independent, arising at different times, even if we tend to group them together (after the fact in reflection) thematically.

Neither is intent a thought. Intention is more pure and primal than thought.

Actions and intent are the objects of thought, after the fact.

8)



As per theory of Karma, the actions, thoughts, words and intents, all are parts of one Karmic stream, just at different distances from origin of stream. Subtle samskaras or intents are at the origin and actions, as you call them 'manifested intents' are at the other end of the stream.
JrnymnX
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2006

Total Topics: 12
Total Comments: 217
Avatar JrnymnX
Posted 04/05/12 - 6:12 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
How, exactly, does a thought become 'manifest'?

Through action. ? raised eyebrow
Perhaps I misunderstand the question?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 04/06/12 - 12:17 PM:

Thoughts are reflections of actions. They are not the cause of actions. They are a reflection of an action, an impulse, an intent.

Words, symbols, are even one more level removed in abstraction, as reflections of thoughts.

Hence why we and the law ought to treat actions only and not 'thoughts' or 'speech', which remains free. Shall we break the mirror because it showed the murder?

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/06/12 - 12:42 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Thoughts are reflections of actions. They are not the cause of actions. They are a reflection of an action, an impulse, an intent.

Words, symbols, are even one more level removed in abstraction, as reflections of thoughts.

Hence why we and the law ought to treat actions only and not 'thoughts' or 'speech', which remains free. Shall we break the mirror because it showed the murder?

8)



Thoughts might be reflection of action as well but that doesn't mean that actions are independent of thoughts altogether. I thought of writing a response to your post and here I am, doing what I thought. However, this act of writing is quite independent in the sense that it's happening in the present moment and thought was in past and it's only through the causation, that's analyses of this mind that we relate that thought in past with this action in present, but that doesn't mean that they're not at all related, as far as theories are concerned.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/07/12 - 1:32 AM:

Hasn't anyone else sometimes had thoughts that you scared yourself with? Violent ones, cruel ones sometimes?
Hasn't anyone else sometimes heard one of their loved ones speak in terms of flat racism or other things that might be deemed unacceptable?

I wouldn't be too quick to judge, especially when it comes to thoughts and words. I suppose active, wide-spread advertisement of terrorism, taking an extreme example, is perhaps a step further. Is that still just thoughts and words? I think it qualifies as terrosism through a third party. Same goes for neo-nazism, for example. You also get a life sentence for paying a hitman to take someone out, don't you? The only difference is motivation. There's a grey zone somewhere in between. Not so easy.

The reaction should be in relation to the gravity of the offense. But then again, who decides the gravity. Freedom of speech is a very important thing. "I will fight to my dying breath what you are saying, but I will defend to my dying breath your right to say it." (something along those lines) I am of the opinion that it all comes down to how badly you are hurting people or how much you are limiting their freedom.
JrnymnX
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2006

Total Topics: 12
Total Comments: 217
Avatar JrnymnX
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/07/12 - 9:12 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Thoughts are reflections of actions

You're holding the mirror backwards.

Monk2400 wrote:
They are not the cause of actions.

Then do you also assume that effects preceed causes?

Monk2400 wrote:
They are a reflection of an action, an impulse, an intent.

Intent is formed after thought, just like actions. Even impulse arises from some basis in thought.

Monk2400 wrote:
Hence why we and the law ought to treat actions only and not 'thoughts' or 'speech', which remains free. Shall we break the mirror because it showed the murder?

I wish I could make heads of tails of this. It seems like it should be interesting.
The law often treats the same action differently according to how much thought was involved. Manslaughter is considered less serious than first degree murder.

Please give an example of an action that preceeds thought. Autonomic and reflexive excluded, of course.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.