The right to offend and the right to be offended

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Yes. That and planting evidence or falsely charging people with menial crimes to generate income for the state.

Right to privacy, search and seizure, confiscation of private property, destruction of same, etc, etc.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
"A fool and his money are soon parted"

The US populace were sold lies about 911 - they are paying billions for the quagmire that is the Middle East. Where is your outrage; or is Alex Jones dehydrated food more of a ethical issue for you?

I can be outraged at more than one thing, but I largely believe that people who peddle misinformation allow the government to get away with murder because they obfuscate the issue and divide the populace not just along what they believe to be right and wrong, but what they believe to have happened at all.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
So its only your brand of truth that should see the light of day?

Not at all. It goes beyond political speech and comes down to product safety. Alex Jones makes things up, RT is propaganda straight out of the Kremlin, Vetrans Today is on record as saying they make up a large percentage of their stories.

ATS is a good place to see this in action, people choose very sketchy sources to "inform" themselves, and then go down the rabbit hole believing all sorts of nonsense. That nonsense is outright detrimental to the country.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Maybe in utopia but in the real world if you flip someone off they may very well strike you, apply a piece of cold steel to your soft tissues or even send a bit of lead your way.

They may be wrong and society might even let them know that it is wrong but that isn't going to help you after the fact.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they have the right to strike me.

A thug could also demand my wallet, and refusal to surrender the wallet could result in him punching me.

In my mind the two scenarios are exactly identical in every way. The person demanding I speak carefully or be struck is doing exactly the same thing as the person demanding I surrender my wallet or be struck. One is attempting to deprive me of the right to free speech by force. The other is attempting to deprive me of the right to property.

Let me see if I understand what some people are saying on this thread:

If someone threatens to violently deprive me of one of my rights, unless I voluntarily surrender it first.....

You're saying I should surrender it in order to avoid having to fight them?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

In that sense they are the same. I never said he has that right, I said he might do it anyway.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

In that sense they are the same. I never said he has that right, I said he might do it anyway.

Yes and he might even do it without provocation.

Beasts need to be dominated and subdued.

The birth of man led to the dominion of all the lesser beasts. Man being nothing but a higher class of animal will be subject to dominion of a higher force, once the birth of a superior species takes place.

In my mind anyone that would utilize their ability to say whatever they want. ...to say crude and offensive things is doing themselves and the world a tremendous disservice.

We only have to fully realize the power of the spoken word to realize the grave responsibility that accompanies the ability to speak ....and no....I will not claim that even I feel the full weight of that responsibility at this time. Nor will I say that I have not spoken a great deal of unnecessarily offensive words myself throughout my lifetime.

But even in my blinded and dulled state of being I realize that the effect of words goes far beyond the ears of those that hear them. Not only do unnecessarily offensive words pollute the minds of those that hear them. ..those coarse and crudely spoken words effect the very atmosphere of the world we live in.

I am convinced that EVERY word spoken contributes to the overall aura of the conscious energy field in which we function.

The Bible plainly says that we will be judged by EVERY word we speak.....and in fact goes on to say. ..even our idle words. This is a clear indication in my opinion that the effects of our words is much greater and further reaching then is commonly believed.

I fully believe that it is the undisciplined tongues of humanity that has established the patterns of violence and filthiness that plaques society.

So......say what you want but realize that those words will be back to haunt you and most likely in ways far worse than imagined.

originally posted by: Xenogears
Yes and he might even do it without provocation.

Maybe but the thread is about provocation through speech.

Beasts need to be dominated and subdued.

The birth of man led to the dominion of all the lesser beasts. Man being nothing but a higher class of animal will be subject to dominion of a higher force, once the birth of a superior species takes place.

Pretty irrelevant when the topic is how humans treat each other.

originally posted by: daskakik

Beasts need to be dominated and subdued.

The birth of man led to the dominion of all the lesser beasts. Man being nothing but a higher class of animal will be subject to dominion of a higher force, once the birth of a superior species takes place.

Pretty irrelevant when the topic is how humans treat each other.

Man has dreamed of divine intervention since time immemorial. What is man, what can be classified as human? Surely we would classify any entity, with similar or superior capabilities, as human even if it were another species.

The strong can offend without fear of repercussion. Tell me what happens to you if you try to get violent with the upper brass or the leader of north korea in north korea? Yes that is right they can offend you as they please, within their dominion you've to take it, there is no consequence for them from offending with abaddon.

That is why if you want to offend as you please, you need strength, enough as to be absolute.

Freedom of speech has always brought with it the possibility of persecution.
How do we differentiate between a Christian in North Korea who loses his family and his own life for refusing to deny allegiance to Jesus, and a young man of Muslim faith who is offended by a comment you make that denies the divinity of Allah or Mohammed as his messenger?
Or alternatively, I could make broad,sweeping statements about Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump, or George Bush Jnr/Snr/Obama, Jimmy Carter, and I'll maybe get an earful from various folks for it.
However, should I choose to exercise such democratically given scrutiny over something like islam, mohammed and all such realms therein contained, I will be shut down, voiced out, belittled and scorned and called a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot and a (insert appropriate response here).
At what point did anyone earn the right to be above scrutiny? And if the answer is 'never', how come the playing field isn't very level?
Just asking is all...

originally posted by: HarryJoy
In my mind anyone that would utilize their ability to say whatever they want. ...to say crude and offensive things is doing themselves and the world a tremendous disservice.

You could say that about every right in the Bill of Rights.

We only have to fully realize the power of the spoken word to realize the grave responsibility that accompanies the ability to speak ....and no....I will not claim that even I feel the full weight of that responsibility at this time. Nor will I say that I have not spoken a great deal of unnecessarily offensive words myself throughout my lifetime.

But even in my blinded and dulled state of being I realize that the effect of words goes far beyond the ears of those that hear them. Not only do unnecessarily offensive words pollute the minds of those that hear them. ..those coarse and crudely spoken words effect the very atmosphere of the world we live in.

Words have only as much power as the listener chooses to grant.

Sometimes that is a lot, because some listeners foolishly let their own imaginations run wild, or are too weak willed to choose their own beliefs.

The Constitution was designed to create a nation suitable to the needs of people who have strong minds. The needs of weak and feeble minded people are largely ignored. (They would usually prefer to live under a king or dictator.)

I am convinced that EVERY word spoken contributes to the overall aura of the conscious energy field in which we function.

The Bible plainly says that we will be judged by EVERY word we speak.....and in fact goes on to say. ..even our idle words. This is a clear indication in my opinion that the effects of our words is much greater and further reaching then is commonly believed.

I fully believe that it is the undisciplined tongues of humanity that has established the patterns of violence and filthiness that plaques society.

So......say what you want but realize that those words will be back to haunt you and most likely in ways far worse than imagined.

That goodness that, in addition to the freedom of speech, we also have the freedom of religion!

You can believe whatever you want about energy fields, and being judged on what you say. Believe it to your heart's content.

But never expect that belief to be given the weight of law.

A person's freedoms extend right up to the point where they would infringe on the freedom of another. You have the right to believe, even if what you believe is that freedom of speech should not be a right. But you don't have the right to force anyone else to believe. Nor to force anyone to act on your belief.

a reply to: Xenogears

You were not talking about fabricated divine intervention. What we call aliens has nothing to do with how they might treat us or how we treat each other therefore irrelevant.

That is why if you want to offend as you please, you need strength, enough as to be absolute.

And here I thought you were disagreeing.

No need to be absolute just strong enough and/or be willing to pay the price.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Here, here! Or, should that be, "hear, hear"? Not offended at all by this, for what it's worth! 100% agree; we cannot demand that others remain silent, or we all risk our freedom. No one has a right to not be offended by the words of another. Yes, these days, we have college professors calling for censorship. College professors!!! Students, too, of course. The way some people behave isn't something I would ever have predicted.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I don't advocate making laws against speech. I simply hold the belief that there are laws already in place (within the structure of conscious life ) that allow our thoughts and words to have impact on the subconscious level.

You can't unhear something so therefore it's effect continues long after the sound fades away ....I just think we owe ourselves and the people around us enough respect to choose our words carefully. Although I admit that this is easier said then done sometimes.

You can't unhear something someone tells you, but you can research the topic until you know enough about it not to be influenced by something someone else has told you in ignorance.

The three limits I can think of on speech are
:

1- Misrepresentation of a point of fact, especially where someone's material well being is concerned. ( IE - no going into a crowded theatre and yelling "fire" when you know there is no fire.) (And no fraudulently misrepresenting things you are selling.... etc..)

2- Statements of intent to do physical harm. (You can't tell someone you will kill them if they don't pay "protection money")

3 - Criminal solicitation. (Such as offering a sum of money to an assassin in exchange for them killing someone on your behalf.)


Can you think of any other exceptions?

I don't think hate speech should be an exception. If a person feels hatred, they might as well be allowed to say so. It's sad that they would feel that way, of course.

Nor do I think provocation is a valid exception. People have an obligation not to let themselves be out of control. No spoken word should ever be enough to make you act violently (unless the spoken words consist of a threat of violence.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I agree with the examples you gave for exceptions. As far as hate speech goes. We should all realize that hate begets hate.

As I see it the primary purpose of speech is to convey information. If by the tone of my voice and the choice of my words I cause a person's emotions to be elevated to a point that they quit listening. ....how can I expect a good result?

I agree that in a perfect world no one should ever act violently because of what someone says to them. The reality is people are not perfect and a lot of people especially in today's society lack a high degree of self control. It would be very easy to provoke a person to violence with words.

There is such a thing as tact....and it is very useful when we want others to actually hear and understand what we are saying.....unfortunately it seems that today coarse and crude language is used to achieve some type of "street cred" as though it displays some type of honorable behaviour. The truth is....even the weakest person could start spouting off whatever pops into their mind.....if all they cared about was "unloading " on someone.

Wars could even be needlessly started by careless words and for all I know have been.... Again I'm not advocating that laws be created....just that people try to use good judgment and not speak in ways that create problems instead of solving them.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: bloodymarvelous



As I see it the primary purpose of speech is to convey information. If by the tone of my voice and the choice of my words I cause a person's emotions to be elevated to a point that they quit listening. ....how can I expect a good result?

Are you saying that people have no responsibility to keep their own emotions in check?

Did I cause them to stop listening? Or did they choose to stop listening?

Is it my responsibility to get them to choose to listen?

I agree that in a perfect world no one should ever act violently because of what someone says to them. The reality is people are not perfect and a lot of people especially in today's society lack a high degree of self control. It would be very easy to provoke a person to violence with words.

In a perfect world nobody would rob banks either. But we don't blame the bank for having money in its vault.

100% of the blame is placed on the theif. 0% on the bank.

0% should also be put on speakers who are attacked by people who cannot control their own emotions.

There is such a thing as tact....and it is very useful when we want others to actually hear and understand what we are saying.....unfortunately it seems that today coarse and crude language is used to achieve some type of "street cred" as though it displays some type of honorable behaviour. The truth is....even the weakest person could start spouting off whatever pops into their mind.....if all they cared about was "unloading " on someone.

Wars could even be needlessly started by careless words and for all I know have been.... Again I'm not advocating that laws be created....just that people try to use good judgment and not speak in ways that create problems instead of solving them.

Any war that is started by careless words, has also been started by a foolish listener.

I would place 99.999999999999999999999% of the fault on the listener. Maybe even 100%.

It's like if someone dumps a huge pile of gunpowder on the ground. And then someone walking by lights up a cigarette and it drops a spark.

Should we really be blaming the person who dropped a spark? Or the person who dumped a whole bunch of gunpowder on the ground?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I would place 99.999999999999999999999% of the fault on the listener. Maybe even 100%.

Blame games don't really change much.

What if both parties are talking smack, 50/50?

There you go. Like the ANTIFA girl. Both sides were there to get violent. Nobody was there to be a good listener. There are no victims.

That would be just like if two banks rob each other.

Law is ALWAYS a blame game. That doesn't in anyway undermine its importance.