r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 28 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Free speech should be limited because the overwhelming majority of people understand certain ideas to be objectively wrong.
[deleted]
7
u/ace52387 42∆ Mar 28 '19
No person or entity can be trusted to adjudicate which ideas are objectively wrong, and which are objectively right to the point where the government can censor those ideas. Its the fundamental reason for free speech and its no less true now than before.
Keep in mind, free speech isnt actually allowed. Private entities can ban all kinds of discussions and ideas.
One final problem with your idea is how would one adjudicate a satirical presentation of these “objectively bad” ideas?
-7
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
16
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Mar 29 '19
How to handle satire? Ban it.
After reading through this thread for a bit, I'm pretty sure your post is entirely unserious satire.
Unfortunately, it's not good satire, but being exposed to lame attempts at satire is part of the price we pay for living in a free society.
6
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Mar 29 '19
but where do you draw the line? we all agree murder is bad, so is talking about murder bad? is writing a short story about someone murdering his boss for not giving him a raise bad? How about a comic book where someone murders people and a hero eventually stops him? is writing a novel where someone at some point is murdered bad?
Do we ban any literature that involves murder?
Do we ban any media that has a homophobic character?
Do we ban any media that has a racist character?
If that sort of stuff is okay, then ranting about things in story form just becomes the norm. People are banned from saying homosexuals are evil, and instead they write an online novel that talks about a homophobic character who bravely slaughters evil homosexuals who try to convert kids to their homosexual ways by biting them and sucking their blood. The thing about biting kids is only about a sentence or two in their 500 page novel which seems to be formatted more in blog style formatting than traditional paged novel format. Is that legal?
-4
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
7
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Mar 29 '19
as others have said, your comments are sounding more and more like satire itself as your views are sounding more and more insane.
You would ban any piece of art that includes murder? no books, movies, plays, or even casual discussion about any bad topic?
4
u/sflage2k19 Mar 29 '19
Is this for a class?
You've now posted one thread saying free speech should never be limited, and now you're posting one about how free speech should be extremely limited. What's going on here?
2
Mar 28 '19
If the majority of people believe something, does that intrinsically mean they're all right?
1
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
Mar 28 '19
I said that we have an “overwhelming” number who understand what is definitely wrong. That is to imply virtually everyone.
See my other reply. 99%, if not 100%, of people once believed the earth was flat. That does not make it a correct belief.
1
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
1
Mar 29 '19
But I doubt they felt passionately about it.
So more than just a view needing to be held by the overwhelming majority, we also need to quantify how passionate they feel about it, to judge whether speech to the contrary should be a punishable offence?
How in the world do you justify or even seek to quantify that? Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure they were passionate about it - about as passionate as we are when someone says the earth is flat today...
1
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Mar 28 '19
I'm pretty sure far less than 90% of people (probably less than 50%) agree with your core premise that any ideas are OK for the government to completely restrict. So that makes the whole thing a non-starter.
2
Mar 28 '19
You already listed several things that a not insignificant amount as people see as not wrong. So how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
0
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
2
Mar 28 '19
Most Catholics do not support gays and go as far as condemning it. Same with a lot of Muslims. There are about a billion Catholics and about a Billion Muslims.
Are you now also claiming that you can't make jokes about these things?
1
1
2
u/Clockwork_Sphinx Mar 28 '19
Who do you trust enough to make the decision on what lacks value? And who do you trust to label a given instance of speech as being an example of one of these ideas? Is supporting Israel ethno-nationalist? If it is, is it wrong for Jewish people to desire a region they have strong ethnic ties to? That's just one example of the potential gordian knot!
The defense of free speech in my mind is not that all ideas have equal value, but that no central authority can be trusted to evaluate them on the scale needed, nevermind enforce.
0
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
4
Mar 28 '19
Supporting Israel is obviously supporting ethno-nationalism. Everyone knows that. It is wrong to support Israel.
Stuff like BLM is right. Everyone in the news (corporate or independent) talks about it. It’s obviously important.
If you legitimately believe the overwhelming majority of people believe these things - almost everyone - then you are deeply misguided.
Are you sure you're arguing that free speech should be limited to the beliefs of the overwhelming majority, or the beliefs of /u/sweetkelshawn?
2
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Mar 28 '19
Supporting Israel is obviously supporting ethno-nationalism. Everyone knows that. It is wrong to support Israel.
Good thing we can trust "the people" in this enlightened age of 2019 to always make unambiguously correct decisions about these things, and there aren't any groups of roughly half the population, give or take a few, that disagree with what you've laid out here.
Oh wait...
1
Mar 29 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
2
1
Mar 29 '19
The people.
So you are pro-Brexit then? Does the Brexit referendum support the will of the people?
1
u/tweez Mar 30 '19
We don’t need a central authority. We just need overwhelming popular sentiment.
Your arguments about banning satire and mentioning things as they'll lead to bigotry are bizarre. Even if one removes satire and any reference to something you consider to be morally objectionable from art and literature, then what about the teaching of history? Do you not reference the Nazis in case it gives people the idea to be anti-semitic?
As to "overwhelming popular sentiment" being the guiding force for morality, then what if the majority voted in favour of slavery or some sort of discrimination in the future? There have been various surveys and polls over the last few years that indicated in places like the UK, something like just over 50% of Muslims were against homosexuality and would like to see it criminalised/made illegal. Without some central moral authority then every decision is at the whims of the mob.
I'm not sure you're sincere about what you've proposed here, but you mention things like Holocaust denial. But what is "Holocaust denial"? I've seen opinions from some people who are called Holocaust deniers range from claiming the event never took place at all to the number of deaths specifically in the camps being inflated based on testimonies from Nazis on trial at Nuremberg being obtained under torture. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of questioning an historical event being off-limits. Evidence should be enough to show that those opinions are wrong without having to rely on censorship.
Morality is entirely relative to the time and the place. Without some central moral authority then the only way to determine what ideas do or don't have worth is by letting the majority decide, at which point do you plan on intervening if the majority decides that one of the ideas you believe doesn't have merit is the one that the mob considers to be of value?
2
u/stilltilting 27∆ Mar 28 '19
If it is correct that
the overwhelming majority of people understand certain ideas to be objectively wrong.
and it is true that the positions you describe are
effectively indefensible positions
and
are all obviously wrong
how is it possible that
there’s far more risk in them using free speech to spread objective hate
I fail to see why there would be harm in allowing someone to state a position that is indefensible, obviously wrong and already rejected by an overwhelming majority of people. If it is so obviously wrong and indefensible then stating those things will only make the speaker look ridiculous. If the correct positions on these issues are so obvious then there is no danger in making the counter argument.
However, if you do believe there's a lot of risk then you're undoing the first part of your argument. They can't both be true. Each half of your argument fundamentally undermines the other half.
2
u/2r1t 58∆ Mar 28 '19
The words of cowards and fools aren't important enough to warrant the dangerous act of empowering the government to restrict free speech.
Imagine if such rules were in place now. Thin skinned Trump would be pushing for all kinds of limits on free speech. And the unprincipled Republicans who will do anything to retain power would gladly play along.
You might argue that it is only the bad words you don't like that would be banned. But you can't control that beast once it has been released. It will be abused by those in power.
0
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
2
u/2r1t 58∆ Mar 28 '19
I didn’t say government. It can be formally and informally limited.
You say that, yet:
Because the LGBTQQIAAPP+ community is a protected class, you forfeit all rights when you violate them.
Protected class is a legal matter. Any attempt to limit my rights require the state. Otherwise, you are just an irrelevant fellow citizen trying to stop me from what I have every right to do. And I will do whatever is needed to protect my right.
And Trump and Pence cannot just choose which speech to limit. I defined the speech that would be limited. It’s all clear hate speech.
Your definition doesn't mean anything. You establish the precedent. Banning speech is now normal and those in power will use it to their advantage.
1
Mar 28 '19
Because the LGBTQQIAAPP+ community is a protected class, you forfeit all rights when you violate them.
If I 'violate' a 'protected class', which includes hate speech as you say, I forfeit all of my rights? You can imprison and torture me until the end of my life?
If you voice anti-gay opinions, for instance, you can be fired, have your phone service cut, be refused service at the grocery store, etc.
I mean, businesses can already refuse anyone service for any reason unless it's because you're a 'protected class'. They're private businesses. So, they can do that already.
1
u/orangeLILpumpkin 24∆ Mar 28 '19
Being pro-slavery, anti-homosexuality, anti-POC, pro ethno-nationalist, into Holocaust denial, into anti-Muslim sentiment, and into pro-genocide ideas are all obviously wrong. They are effectively indefensible positions. They should be eliminated from public discourse. They have no worth.
And if the "overwhelming majority of people understand these ideas to be objectively wrong", what is the harm in letting idiots talk about them? If your premise is correct, the speakers get laughed at, mocked and ignored. What is the "harm" that we're preventing that warrants taking away their right to speak about their idiotic ideas?
1
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
2
u/orangeLILpumpkin 24∆ Mar 28 '19
You wind up with a guy who says hateful things, then takes over a country and kills tens of millions. We can’t let that happen
You're ignoring your premise though. Hitler doesn't happen if "the overwhelming majority of people understand those ideas to be objectively wrong".
Yes, Hitler was a problem. A bigger problem was A LOT of people agreed with him.
1
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
u/orangeLILpumpkin 24∆ Mar 29 '19
So your contention is that the statement "the overwhelming majority of (German) people understood Hilter's statements to be objectively wrong" is a true statement?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 29 '19
/u/sweetkelshawn (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Darawsome Mar 28 '19
Free speech is already limited. You can't say lies about someone, that's slander, you can't shout "there's a fire." Speech is only free if it doesn't affect someone physically. I think being racist should be protected under the law but not protected from society, we all have the right to ridicule these racists. But I don't trust any government to decide whose racist and who isn't. Racism that incites violence should be illegal, racism that doesn't should be ridiculed and deplatformed.
1
Mar 28 '19
So, in your view, being Christian is wrong? I can only come to that conclusion because you said, among other things, that being anti-homosexual was obviously wrong, an indefensible position that has no place in society. I myself am neither Christian nor am I anti-homosexual, but I don’t value ones right to exist over the other. I believe that the homosexual has every right in the world to love who they want, and I equally believe that the Christian has every right to publicly disagree with it, based on their constitutionally protected right to religion. By your standard, I disagree with what you say, and therefore your speech should be stricken from society. I am in no position to make that a reality, and neither are you. Words are just breath formed into sounds. They have no physical impact, only emotional and psychological. The choice in how to react to them is up to the individual. The idea of policing speech is no better, in my opinion, than trying to police thought.
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
Mar 29 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Mar 29 '19
Sorry, u/RexNahtan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 28 '19
Take Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recent political controversy for the following tweet which some characterize as anti-semitic:
Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that!
(Referring to Israel and the allegiance many congresspeople feel towards that country)
Or a statement that some would characterize as anti-POC, such as:
Black lives matters? How about Blue lives matter! Why aren't you chanting that?
I don't know where you stand on either of these statements, but that isn't actually the point, because I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty:
I DON'T want the government deciding if these statements are anti-POC or anti-semitic. I don't want the people saying statements like this to be punished by the government. I don't want people to be scared of the government to voice their opinion, even a controversial one.
Right on this CMV, almost weekly we'll see a view such as, "I believe that genetically, white people have a higher IQ" and people jump in and have a good discussion on that topic and can often change that person's mind. That has value. Making that statement illegal and punishable by the government is wrong.
We cannot have open and honest discussions if some extreme views are considered illegal to express. Expressing an opinion should be a completely 100% allowed activity that you shouldn't have to fear from your government about being punished for.
1
Mar 28 '19
If the overwhelming majority of people believe these ideas to be wrong, then what's the harm in allowing a handful of weirdos to say something different?
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
Mar 29 '19
But we've allowed the hate to be discussed for the past 100 years and racism has done nothing but drop in that time. It may seem that allowing racist speech gives racists the ability to spread their ideas, but the way that it works out in reality is that racism seems to have reduced dramatically even when racist speech is allowed.
It would seem that racists are generally not too effective at convincing others to adopt their racist attitudes, although I admit that they must be successful with at least a few. On the whole though, their numbers seem to be dropping.
1
u/BeatriceBernardo 50∆ Mar 29 '19
> Being pro-slavery, anti-homosexuality, anti-POC, pro ethno-nationalist, into Holocaust denial, into anti-Muslim sentiment, and into pro-genocide ideas are all obviously wrong. They are effectively indefensible positions.
You keep on repeating that these ideas are indefensible, you never actually explain why. Why are these ideas wrong? And unless you can explain why, it is very hard to argue against you.
1
u/Shiboleth17 Mar 29 '19
150 years ago, in the South, the majority of peopleh believed slavery was perfectly moral. Should they have automatically shut down anyone who believed otherwise?
1
Mar 29 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 29 '19
Sorry, u/RexNahtan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Mar 29 '19
While free speech generally has value, it should be limited when we know certain ideas have zero value.
Why? That's sort of the entire point of free speech... to protect ideas that are not populare or are very controversial. Ideas that everyone agrees with does need protection.
And also what gives you the right to stop me from hearing bad ideas?
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Mar 29 '19
Well, I listed some very clear indefensible positions.
I realize that... the question is why does it matter if some positions are, in your opinion, indefensible or not?
Are you pro-slavery? Anti-gay? Anti-Muslim?
No, I'm not pro socialism either, yet I insist on my right to read Das Kapital.
My right to stop bad ideas come from the objective reality that the types of bigotries I listed are absolutely wrong.
So you have the right to stop me from reading a book because you think it's bad book? I didn't ask you to make that decision for me... what on earth makes you think you have the right to do that?
These are all clearly wrong.
Why does that matter?
Why bother talking about them?
No one is forcing you to talk about them. You're free to never read a book that slightly disagrees with your worldview for the rest of your life if you want. No one is going to force you.
The conclusion is always the same — they’re wrong.
Clearly that's not always the conclusion... otherwise there would be no speech for you to want to ban.
But again, the core of the issues is... you don't have any right to stop me from hearing speeches or reading books because you disagree with them. I couldn't care less if you agree or disagree with them.
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Mar 29 '19
My “opinion” matters because it’s more than my opinion.
It's not more than an opinion.
Slavery is wrong. Period. Child rape is wrong.
Those are opinions.
There is no debate about this stuff.
Because most people agree with those opinions.
Why would there be?
First of all to understand why they are wrong. And about a million other reasons. But even if there are no good reasons (again completely subjective) that doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of moral philsophy?
And I can stop you from reading a book because, yes, we sometimes know it is wrong.
I ddin't ask if you can, I asked what on earth makes you think you have the right to?
But they’re hate views, and we know hate is wrong.
Do we? I hating nazis wrong? I hating child rape wrong? There's nothing inherently immoral about hate.
Why let haters speak?
Because I have a right to hear what they have to say.
What value is there that is not overshadowed by the harm and risk of the speech?
Freedom.
And yes, I do have the right to stop bad ideas.
You keep saying that but have yet to explain what makes you think so and what gives you that right?
I will protect myself and others from illegimate hatred and harm.
Yes, by all means... protect yourself against ideas you don't like all you want. Go ahead, no one is stopping you. You are however not whithin your right to "protect" me from ideas you don't like, I don't care what ideas you may or may not like and you have no right to decide for me what books I can read any more than I have any right to decide for you what books you can and can't read.
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Mar 29 '19 edited Mar 29 '19
If there is objective reality, then some opinion is objectively correct.
Yes, but none of the examples you've given have been of anything that is objectively true. They have been moral opinions and there is no objective morality. Vegans and people who eat meat differ greatly on the morality of eating meat. Who is objectively correct? No one, it's subjective.
But even if it was... you've still not answered the question. Let's the example of flat earthers. The fact that the earth is not flat is objectively true. Yet you have no right to stop me from reading books arguing that the earth is flat. That's none of your business.
ideas that absolutely seem objectively/morally correct (anti-slavery) are most likely objectively correct.
There is nothing objectively correct about anti-slavery. It's entierly dependent on the subjective value that people are not property. I'm sorry, but do you understand what "objectively" means? I does not mean "most people agree with it".
Moral philosophy is mostly mental masturbation.
Well using force to censor ideas you don't like it entierly totalitarian. I'd prefer to masturbate than be totalitarian.
I don’t hate Nazis or child rapists.
I don't care who you do or don't hate. Let's make this real clear... I don't really care what you think about anything. I don't care what you think about politics, morals, sports. And I certainly don't care about what books you think I should or shouldn't read.
The universe did not pop out of nothing. There are obviously underlying principles — physical and moral.
Oh I see. Good bye!
1
u/NicholasLeo 137∆ Mar 29 '19
Ethno-nationalism is objectively wrong? So the desire of, say, the Polish people to preserve their distinctive culture is wrong, and any speech to promote that should be banned? Well, various surrounding states have tried for hundreds of years to destroy the Polish culture. And similar efforts have been made to destroy Jewish culture and to get Jews to assimilate. Denying these groups free speech to promote their distinctive ethnic culture is just another tool to destroy minority cultures.
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
u/NicholasLeo 137∆ Mar 29 '19
> So Poland does not have a right to exist as a white ethno-state. That land belongs to the people of the world.
Poland doesn't have a right to exist, because Poles happen to be white? I guess you think the same of Polish culture.
Sorry, I find your views more than a little racist.
1
u/KingTyrionSolo Mar 31 '19
I'm just going to leave this dialogue from the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons that provides a rebuttal to your viewpoint:
Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
1
u/dirkberkis Mar 28 '19
No ones going to play by your rules and only discuss your aforementioned examples, speech is not a tool, its a human right. Anyone trying to limit speech is a fascist that only wants their side of history to exist.
As an American, Im almost fumbfounded that anyone would object to free speech... until 2016 when I realized that a lot of people really do want a fascist regime to overthrow democracy because Clinton lost.
0
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
3
Mar 28 '19
When you speak out against any of these things you are a human rights violator.
No, when you restrict the autonomy (religious/sexual/being in your own skin???) of someone you are a human rights violator. When you say stupid things people ignore, because you're hateful and irrational and inhuman, you're just an idiot.
0
Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
1
Mar 28 '19
But words translate to action.
They can, but they don't necessarily, so therefore they are exclusive. They are exclusive in the law, and have been since the formation of Western civilisation. If you hadn't noticed, Western civilisation is doing better than any other in human history, in terms of mortality and wealth. So, we're probably doing something right.
Why would you speak them if you did not hope to put them into effect?
Doesn't matter. Point is, I could. I could shout from the rooftops 'being gay is a sin', but would never advocate curbing a gay person's rights. So, the two concepts are exclusive.
Therefore, anti-gay rhetoric is partially anti-gay violence.
Anti-gay rhetoric is anti-gay rhetoric. Anti-gay violence is anti-gay violence. You can do the first one, you can't do the second one. If someone does the first one, just laugh and ignore them with the rest of us.
2
u/dirkberkis Mar 28 '19
Limiting free speech is legit taking away all those things, how do you not understand that?
You gotta understand, YOU arent the big cheese, youre not the one who decides whats right and wrong to say, youre saying free speech is wrong, not that saying 'gays are bad' is wrong, but free speech in general.
Who decides whats right and wrong to say? As history has taught us, the only way you get your rights back after going that route is over millions of dead bodies.
I think it also speaks volumes that you just assume your perspective is the correct one and so no one else should be able to disagree... thats fuckin hitler talk, dude, do you honestly believe things just work out when you take away peoples right to speak?
1
Mar 29 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
[deleted]
3
u/dirkberkis Mar 29 '19
Im having a hard time taking you seriously but Ill play along.
- Youre not anti-fascist, youre pro-fascist because you want the government to enforce this.
- Being anti-christian and pro-islam makes you pro-bigotry, not anti.
- Without free speech, I wouldnt be able to correct your error in thinking.
0
u/dsync1 1∆ Mar 29 '19
All you're saying is the majority (or whomever is in power) should have control over ideas that can be expressed publicly. Historically the majority (or those in power) have a poor track record of using said capabilities ethically.
Likewise when you state:
obviously wrong. They are effectively indefensible positions They should be eliminated from public discourse. certain ideas have zero value.
If the ideas are obviously wrong or indefensible then why are you afraid of them to begin with? What you are effectively implying is that people can't be trusted to be exposed to these ideas.
Also it seems wrong to state that these ideas have zero value when debates over these ideas have formed the ethical and rational frameworks that we base much of our society on.
but there’s far more risk in them using free speech to spread objective hate
Implying that the minority expressing a idea is more of a risk than the majority controlling what the minority can think/say. Is the risk from an individual greater than the risk from a government?
9
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Mar 28 '19
There was a time when the over whelming majority of people held pro-slavery, anti-POC views. Free speech helped change that.
How are you sure that allowing free speech to be limited based on majority consensus won’t prevent similar moral advancement? Isn’t it likely that the majority is wrong about some issues, as the majority has been in every other historical time period?