You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: COMPUTING FOREVER PROMOTED STEEMIT!
If you allow me, I like to ask a question since I'm still not clear on my own position: "Do you believe in 100% free speech without any rules?" Showing respect to others is a rule to me. So far, I have Respect at the top of my list, above free speech, or maybe at the same level, but somehow they go hand in hand with me.
the question is if you put "rules" on free speech, who decides what they are? Of course, there are laws about treats of violence / child pornography / etc. but that's already a provision on free speech law.
I agree it'll be hard, even unwanted to put Respect for yourself AND others into laws. But it seems to me that Free Speech is miss used in eg my own home country to deliberately upset entire groups and communities; For their own personal gain, at the cost of others. This is harming a society. I have no answers how be honest. I do not think bad at all when you crack jokes at the expense of others, but when using it for personal gain, that is another topic.
the things is that as long they are words, it's better than actual actions. If you crack down on those people for stating their opinions, they may just get real weapons instead. The best remedy for a bad idea is a better idea. You need a flow of communication for society to move forward and that means that "bad ideas" need to be protected too.
I understand what you mean. I like to ask your view on this one:
One of our politicians made the statement to his audience (in public): "Do you wan to have more or less Moroccans in our country". The audience started shouting "fewer, fewer, fewer". You have to know that the audience was prepared for this question and their response before the speech of the politician started, but that was not proven as per rules of proof by the court. Apparently they also used the live comedy show tactics, people in the room who more or less tell the crowd what to do, applauding, shouting or whatever. This politician was brought into the court room for this, but in the end the judge gave him a free pass stating something like "He is a politician and politicians should be allowed to do this kind of things and he is punished enough already". The later remark is based on the fact that this politician is under threat if his own life by the same groups of people he continuously demonizes.
So his opinion shouldn't be allowed? Here is an example: What if, for some weird reason, 95% of the crime were perpetrated by moroccans in your country? Could someone who is running for office say that they want less of them in your country?
The stats are by far not that extreme. But lets say that indeed the majotiy of the crime is done by a specific group. And lets say it are 5.000 members of the community who are the actual criminals. Lets then further say that the entire community consists of 250.000 members. Is this helping the situation? Don't you think that such way of work is actually worsen the whole thing? 250.000 people feel being the victim. Some group of people start thinking that actually ALL Moroccans are bad news. Progressing in time, things will become more extreme and the extreme groups become bigger in size. To be honest, that is THE issue now in entire Europe. And in the world actually. The distance between Christianity (white world) and Islam is becoming bigger and bigger due to a very small minority of the communities on both sides making things worse. If we are not careful, this will explode into a world war, number 3, I'm afraid.
would the solution to be silencing one side? Or would it be to have an honest debate where both side of the issue can speak and let people make their own minds about it?
I agree with you that debates are good. That all should be allowed to be said. But what people say shall also have a degree of respect in it. Otherwise a system based on Free Speech will have troubles to actually work. Any system we try to create and shall supersedes previous systems must work not only in theory but also in practise. In theory I FULLY and I mean FULLY AGREE with you. In theory it would be fantastic to have unlimited freedom of speech. But I'm still not clear if this theory will actually work in practise in such a way it'll benefit society. Maybe we shall test it, true.