Restrictions that should be attached to the main "Freedoms" in this country.

[Capacity]

By restrictions attatched to freedoms, I mean for example defamation as a restriction to the freedom of speech. So, while it is ok to speek freely, it is not ok to publish defamatory statements about people.

Another example, the freedom of assembly is the freedom to meet with people; in this instance lets say in a public place. A restriction attached to this freedom is the offence which is committed when a person willfully disrupts free passage along a highway.

Does anyone have issues with any restrictions on freedoms? Does anyone think that certain restrictions should be put in place?

It was a discussion I had earlier in a class, that's the reason for the topic.

Feel free to let this drop if you think I'm talking crazy.

[Renzo]

I do think that there should be some restrictions on extreme and hateful comments. For example in the tabloids they print items that seem to be backed up with no proper evidence which verge on rascism.

[Aladdin]

Yes I believe in restrictions. In particular concerning freedom of speech. No racist or hatred comments should be allowed.

I think every last rational person can tell the difference between suppressing freedom of speech and stamping out racist or otherwise hatred-filled comments.

[ShyBoy]

Restrictions are necessary, we are free to become what we want to be - in our society - if you want to be free to do whatever then you must leave our society. But then there's the problem that to my knowledge there aren't many more liberal societys than ours. You could make your own on some scottish island I guess, but then again you would never be free of being human and therefore being bound by the universal constitution of human rights. And even if you weren't human - every living creature has 'rights' to some extent doesn't it?

Anyway - I think that at the moment our society is a bit too mixed with too many people with too many beleifs. Now beleive me I don't beleive in segregation (theres a posh word I just cant remember it) but currently in our society different people have so many different sets of morals, and the people in power are generally white (or brought up in a 'good' school rather than black slum living) and from middle to upper class. Because of this, and because of so many small communities that are unable to break through to this level the politicians are out of touch so there is an area for self-governship.

This self-governship allows hateful, or racist comments in some places but in others it is strictly frowned upon. This breaks down to even very small communities and even family households. In mine racism is strongly discouraged against and we have good cultural links. My cousin is half-cast and my old best friend (he moved away) was black. But in another household of someone I know househole racism isn't seen as bad but merely matter of factly. They just see themselves as better than black people.

And this is true in all aspects of society that different places have their own rules. Sometimes the government must allow people to govern themselves because there cannot be a representative for every single person in the house of commons. I beleive that if someone goes into a town centre and is actively hateful and upsetting people then the police should move him on but nothing more serious. We can't make Britain into a police state.

[LabRat]

The only restriction that should be attached to freedom is- ‘ freedom of your fists ends before my nose’, all other restrictions are usurpation.
Defamation doesn’t make physical harm so it’s everybody’s right to insult me in any way they like. This doesn’t make them my friends but nobody has an obligation to be my friend.
It would be wonderful if duels were legalized but whining to mommy ( authorities) that bad boys call names? Thank you.

[the sole liber]

In a free society, people should be free to do as they please whilst respecting rights to person and property. That means all narcotics should be legal, for instance.

In the case of freedom of assembly, then you should acquire the permission of the property owner BEFORE you congregate.

[Capacity]

Originally posted by LabRat
The only restriction that should be attached to freedom is- ‘ freedom of your fists ends before my nose’, all other restrictions are usurpation.
Defamation doesn’t make physical harm so it’s everybody’s right to insult me in any way they like. This doesn’t make them my friends but nobody has an obligation to be my friend.
It would be wonderful if duels were legalized but whining to mommy ( authorities) that bad boys call names? Thank you.

Defamation is making a false statement about someone which damages their reputation. Under the catagories of defamation falls obvious examples of libel defamation such as articles published in newspapers, videos, CD's and even paintings.

It's not quite as simple as calling your best mate a little bitch down the pub. The statement has to be false, and it has to cause damage to the persons reputation. Would you want someone printing that you favoured sex with dead sheep? Or would you rightfully 'whine to mommy'?

Back to topic...

Edited* Misuse of word.

[Aladdin]

How about freedom of speech vs. freedom of integrity, both physical and emotional?

That some people claim not to be affected by insults is irrelevant. The fact is that emotional harm is every bit as real as physical harm, and if you don't believe people should have the right to punch others then they don't have the right to insult them either.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
The only restriction that should be attached to freedom is- ‘ freedom of your fists ends before my nose’, all other restrictions are usurpation.
Defamation doesn’t make physical harm so it’s everybody’s right to insult me in any way they like. This doesn’t make them my friends but nobody has an obligation to be my friend.
It would be wonderful if duels were legalized but whining to mommy ( authorities) that bad boys call names? Thank you.

If you really believe the old adage "sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me" then you have a lot to learn about people...

Does free speech include the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre?

or "theatre!" in a crowded fire... ;)

[the sole liber]

Originally posted by Capacity
Defamation is making a false statement about someone which damages their reputation. Under the catagories of defamation falls obvious examples of libel defamation such as articles published in newspapers, videos, CD's and even paintings.

It's not quite as simple as calling your best mate a little bitch down the pub. The statement has to be false, and it has to cause damage to the persons reputation. Would you want someone printing that you favoured sex with dead sheep? Or would you rightfully 'whine to mommy'?

Back to topic...

Edited* Misuse of word.

Sorry but 'emotional harm' is subjective. Physical harm generally isn't.

If Arsenal beat Tottenham on Sunday, Spurs fans would be 'emotionally harmed'. Should there REALLY be a law against that??!:lol:


And take offence. SO many things offend people and THAT is truly subjective.

Really you can't make legislation based on 'emotional harm'!!!

[Capacity]

You're putting too much into the 'emotional harm', much more is based upon the damage that it does to your reputation. Particularly, when you effected in ways such as being dismissed from work, or being refused admission to somewhere. Just random examples.

[Namaste]

If we gave society too much freedom, wouldn't people take the piss? I mean I know the media's a good brainwashing tool and all... but who will control us? And where do you draw the line about how 'free' somebody is?

Complete and absolute freedom is limited by thought and physics. If we could fly and walk through walls... now that would be freedom.

But I don't see how we can live in a free society as I don't believe freedom exists at all. mainly because we can't completely trust the government. For example if we were in a free society and went to the supermarket... would we really know what's in our food? Shouldn't we have the freedom to eat cruelty free meat and GM free food? What if we wanted coffee beans that were fair trade? Surely in a completely free society food labels would say 'this product comes from exploited workers in Columbia' because technically we'd want the freedom to eat exactly what we want and to know where it came from. Not allowing us to do so would be restricting our freedom...

But then some people might want the ignorance of what they are eating... and putting the source on the label would restrict their freedom. How do we keep everybody happy?

If we knew everything about the companies we buy from and about the government (so we have enough knowledge for complete freedom of choice) the country would be haywire... wouldn't it?

Just an idea...

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by the sole liber
Sorry but 'emotional harm' is subjective. Physical harm generally isn't.

If Arsenal beat Tottenham on Sunday, Spurs fans would be 'emotionally harmed'. Should there REALLY be a law against that??!:lol:


And take offence. SO many things offend people and THAT is truly subjective.

Really you can't make legislation based on 'emotional harm'!!!

Psychological harm often causes more lasting damage than physical harm. If you haven't worked this out yet, you don't understand people very well...

[the sole liber]

But it is SUBJECTIVE!!

You cannot make laws against it for that purpose!

[the sole liber]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Yes I believe in restrictions. In particular concerning freedom of speech. No racist or hatred comments should be allowed.

I think every last rational person can tell the difference between suppressing freedom of speech and stamping out racist or otherwise hatred-filled comments.

Fuck racism!

I ain't no racist, but there's too much of a brew-ha-ha surrounding 'racism' these days. I say people have a right to be racist!

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by the sole liber
Fuck racism!

I ain't no racist, but there's too much of a brew-ha-ha surrounding 'racism' these days. I say people have a right to be racist! As long as they don't say it publicly...

[LabRat]

You know this racist thematic is getting boring… of course everybody has the right to be a racist , the sole liber is absolutely right ( he is right in 99% cases) I just think you all are too …how to say it correctly, addicted? to this. For me everybody may say that the Earth is flat, the Moon is made of cheese, blacks are stupid, democracy is for people , LabRat is a loony ( that is true)- what the difference? Think and sing whatever you wish, but please don’t shut up others.
To Aladdin. Do people have the right to think publicly?

[Aladdin]

To think, yes. To say, for instance, "blacks are nothing but a bunch of sub-normal fucking n******", certainly not. May your unrestricted freedom of speech be damned. :rolleyes:

And if one person (you) thinks monocrat is right 99% of the time and 100 others (the rest) think he's wrong 99% of the time, what percentage of the total time is monocrat actually right? Get those calculators out!

[LabRat]

Exactly what I say. A word of a wise man is gold , while words of millions of millions of millions idiots aren’t worth shit they produced thinking this about. The real value of democracy.

[Aladdin]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by the sole liber
But it is SUBJECTIVE!!

You cannot make laws against it for that purpose!

Just because something is subjective doesn't make it any less real. Love is subjective. It still exists.

You need to grow up a bit I think.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
You know this racist thematic is getting boring… of course everybody has the right to be a racist , the sole liber is absolutely right ( he is right in 99% cases) I just think you all are too …how to say it correctly, addicted? to this. For me everybody may say that the Earth is flat, the Moon is made of cheese, blacks are stupid, democracy is for people , LabRat is a loony ( that is true)- what the difference? Think and sing whatever you wish, but please don’t shut up others.
To Aladdin. Do people have the right to think publicly?

Yes you have the right to think what you like. No one has ever said otherwise. Same as I have the right to call you an immature fool.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Just because something is subjective doesn't make it any less real. Love is subjective. It still exists.

You need to grow up a bit I think.


nobody wants tp make laws regarding love - and dot say marriage cause marrying for 'love' has only been popular in the last 100/150 years at most

[the sole liber]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Just because something is subjective doesn't make it any less real. Love is subjective. It still exists.

You need to grow up a bit I think.

But if someone thing is purely subject to personal feeling, how can you make an OBJECTIVE law against it!!?

It's simply not possible!

[Aladdin]

Oh yes it is. It already exists and it works perfectly well.

Pain is subjective anyway. Some people feel no physical pain so presumably it's okay to punch them then?

[the sole liber]

Pain is subjective anyway. Some people feel no physical pain so presumably it's okay to punch them then?

And those people aren't normal since pain is a natural respsonse. A non sequitur.

Offence (a form of emotional harm) is clearly subjective. You cannot have laws outlawing ANY imaginable form of offence.

[Aladdin]

Isn't the definition 'normal' itself subjective?

And yes, you can have laws governing verbal/hatred/racist abuse. They exist on every country in the world and work perfectly fine for 99.9999999999999% of the population. If you and two others disagree, that's too bad matey!

[the sole liber]

Sorry but pain is the normal response to injury, just as heartbeats are normal.

It's got nothing to do with anything subjective.

And yes, you can have laws governing verbal/hatred/racist abuse. They exist on every country in the world and work perfectly fine for 99.9999999999999% of the population. If you and two others disagree, that's too bad matey!

Well 'matey' I never mentioned racist abuse in my former post! If someone is too sensitive about hearing the word ****** it's their loss.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by the sole liber
Sorry but pain is the normal response to injury, just as heartbeats are normal.

It's got nothing to do with anything subjective.

And emotional pain is the normal response to abuse, just as heartbeats are normal as well.

Everybody feels it. If you are immune or indifferent to all verbal abuse, then you are an anomaly.

But the rest of the world isn't. Therefore it is proper that there are laws restriciting abuse.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Sole, do you mind someone calling you a twat then, or insulting you in anyway? Or if you were discriminated at work for being white, or any other of things you say should be 'allowed'? I'm just popping into this thread and will get my footing concordantly.

[wheresmyplacebo]

people have as many rights to do what they like as long as they are repsosible with them

put simply

with rights come responsibilites

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by the sole liber
Fuck racism!

I ain't no racist, but there's too much of a brew-ha-ha surrounding 'racism' these days. I say people have a right to be racist!

Would it be a crazy guess to suggest that you are not part of an ethnic minority and thus have never been subjected to rascist abuse?

You are not rascist so I assume you would not want to live in a rascist soiety? Have rascist institutions? rascist culture etc?

If so then what exactly is the problem with telling people that they are wrong to be raqscist and discouraging it at every turn?

Society a century ago was probably more rascist than now, we have not become a more tolerant society by sitting back saying "its all subjective really isn't it?" and letting the rascists get away with it.

Sooceity advances by taking action to show what is disapproived of and what isn't.

i can't beleive anyone could think this was a bad thing........

[the sole liber]

To me the only rational basis of a right to be racist is the right to form opinions.

That's why I believe in a right to be racist!

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

I don't think anyone is debating that, but I think the issue is acting on those opinions. You know burning people etc etc. That's why laws were invented against that, because people were being discriminated, and respecting rights to person and property. was not being upheld. It's not ok per se to have racist opinions, by all means have them, but laws prevent anyone acting on those racist opinions.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by the sole liber
To me the only rational basis of a right to be racist is the right to form opinions.

That's why I believe in a right to be racist!

But why do you want people to be forming racist opinions? Why not say "enough is enough2 we aren't going to stand for it because we don't beleive in it?

If you don't believe in deliberately trying to change things for the better then you don't bel;ieve in much really.........

[the sole liber]

How can you ever control how people think??

It's certainly not possible now! Besides in a free society, who is to say what a person can or cannot think? If you can eliminate extreme opinions, why not benign ones?

Thoughts are not WHOLLY linked to action!

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

You can't control how people think, but what you can control is how much they can act on those opinions. And benign opinions don't normally lead to people getting strung up on trees, burned to death, victimised or murdered, as in the case of racism.

[Toadborg]

I didn't say anything about control, more about influence.

Everyone has opinions, sometimes they change them. Sometimes there opinions are wrong, not in the moral sense but in the strict scientific sense.

Fuck it with moral relativity. If you have a racist belief then you are scientifically wrong.

If people are wrong then why not tell them, if you had a child and they developed rasist views would you not tell them they were wrong, try to influence there opinion?

[Toadborg]

i also don't think it matters if some isn't acting or has never axcted on their views.

If you believed that holding a benign view was ok, you don't know that the personb would not axct on it in the future......

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by the sole liber
And those people aren't normal since pain is a natural respsonse. A non sequitur.

Define "natural". Define "pain".
All feelings (physical, emotional or psychological) are subjective.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by the sole liber
Sorry but pain is the normal response to injury, just as heartbeats are normal.

It's got nothing to do with anything subjective.

Errrr...yes it has.

People have different pain thresholds.

[the sole liber]

They're only subjective in how we feel them.

I can stab ten people in the stomach and they'd all feel physical pain; it's just their TOLERANCE to the pain would differ.

The fact is DEFINITIVE things can cause physical injury. Many things can cause emotional/psychological pain.

You can't control how people think, but what you can control is how much they can act on those opinions. And benign opinions don't normally lead to people getting strung up on trees, burned to death, victimised or murdered, as in the case of racism.

But if you control, why stop with extreme views??

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by the sole liber
They're only subjective in how we feel them.

I can stab ten people in the stomach and they'd all feel physical pain; it's just their TOLERANCE to the pain would differ.

The fact is DEFINITIVE things can cause physical injury. Many things can cause emotional/psychological pain.



But if you control, why stop with extreme views??

You really don't understand people do you?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Originally posted by the sole liber
But if you control, why stop with extreme views??
What do you mean? I don't understand the question? And you seem to be very wooly in your argument btw. So, being stabbed is definitive, where as calling someone a black ****** **** isn't?

[the sole liber]

No it doesn't.

What CAUSES physical pain is objective. What causes emotional pain is subjective.

[Blagsta]

No, what causes physical pain can also be subjective.

[the sole liber]

No it isn't. Pain is pain, irrespective of one's pain threshold.

If people are wrong then why not tell them, if you had a child and they developed rasist views would you not tell them they were wrong, try to influence there opinion?

No!! They can think what they like!!!!!

[Namaste]

Originally posted by Blagsta
No, what causes physical pain can also be subjective.

:yes:

Like for example injections. They cause pain... but would you stop giving those to people? Tattoos and body modification too... and BDSM.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by the sole liber
No it isn't. Pain is pain, irrespective of one's pain threshold.

Yes it fucking is. Something that hurts one person might not hurt another person. Its all subjective.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by the sole liber


No!! They can think what they like!!!!!

Well why are you on here arguing your point? Why bother at all?
What you are doing is trying to show us that you are right, to influence our opinions.

Why not give up and 'let us think what we like'?

The fact that you are interested in discussion and debate shows that you wish your view to be heard and that you want people to be convinced by your arguments.........

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

What Toadborg said. And anyway Sole Liber, you say pain is pain, why are you splitting it up into emotional vs physical. All pain is subjective then, by your own argument.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by Toadborg
Would it be a crazy guess to suggest that you are not part of an ethnic minority and thus have never been subjected to rascist abuse?

You are not rascist so I assume you would not want to live in a rascist soiety? Have rascist institutions? rascist culture etc?

If so then what exactly is the problem with telling people that they are wrong to be raqscist and discouraging it at every turn?

Society a century ago was probably more rascist than now, we have not become a more tolerant society by sitting back saying "its all subjective really isn't it?" and letting the rascists get away with it.

Sooceity advances by taking action to show what is disapproived of and what isn't.

i can't beleive anyone could think this was a bad thing........


im sure everyone has had some form of racist abuse at them whether they're black white or pink with yellow spots!

people do have right to free thought, the only problem is people do act upon their thought consciously or subconsciously ie discrimination occurs then

its a fine line between stopping biggoted scum and blocking basic rights of the individual

people naturally catogorise things whether its completly true or not, so all groups have views of other groups ie men/women, stright/gay, races, music etc etc its our way of dealing wih the world and not straining our brains FACT
what we should do is educate not subjigate!!!

[LabRat]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yes you have the right to think what you like. No one has ever said otherwise. Same as I have the right to call you an immature fool.
Holy truth! But what the difference between thinking silently and thinking aloud?
Originally posted by Aladdin
Oh yes it is. It already exists and it works perfectly well.

I’m glad. No kidding, seriously.
Originally posted by Toadborg
Would it be a crazy guess to suggest that you are not part of an ethnic minority and thus have never been subjected to rascist abuse? […blah-blah-blah everything below…]

A mean trick. In any sport players like you are kicked out of the field.
]Originally posted by Blagsta
No, what causes physical pain can also be subjective.
You don’t understand the difference. Physical harm can be measured while emotional harm can’t. This means subjective.
If your arm is broken it is objective whether you are crying or laughing.
If you are named ‘not kewl’ you are free to commit suicide of course…my congratulations but not my fault.
‘Sticks and stones can break my bones…’ well, this proverb is out of date.
What can I say?
One thing only.
Generation of sissies.

[Blagsta]

No, YOU don't understand the difference. Its all subjective. If I break my arm and you break your arm, we both might be in pain, but we both have different experiences of that pain. There is no quantitave way to objectively measure if my arm hurts more or less than yours.

See?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
Sticks and stones can break my bones…’ well, this proverb is out of date.
What can I say?
One thing only.
Generation of sissies.

Psychological hurt can stay with people all their lives. Or don't you think that emotional abuse or neglect of children is any big deal?

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by LabRat

A mean trick. In any sport players like you are kicked out of the field.


Only offering some context.

Just suggestion that those who offer such arguments about 'free speech' etc. Are unlikely to be the ones who are actually taking the abuse are they?

[Aladdin]

Could this really be the same Labrat who on another thread was complaining about the sole liber being called an idiot?

Apparently insults could hurt then.

:rolleyes: