Do you believe in Free Speech?

[Rex]

Poll question: Do you believe in Free Speech?

What are we? Heartless reality freaks or Net Nannies?

[jjmalonejr]

1. Freedom of speech does not absolve one of the consequences of that speech.

You can say anything you want, but don't be surprised if people react badly. Your freedom to say something doesn't remove another's freedom not to like it.

And reacting badly to speech you don't like isn't censorship. It's exercising your freedom of speech right back.

[Rex]

2. I guess it cuts both ways.

nt

[jjmalonejr]

4. Yes, it does.

It's what makes the country so interesting, but so messy. Disagreement is messy. Silence is very clean.

[Pithlet]

10. Yes

I was going to say something to that effect, but you summed it up perfectly.

[Walt Starr]

3. I support free speech 100%

and if people don't like what I have to say, fuck 'em.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Sure..that's why if I object to what someone says, I exercise mine

Ain't it grand?

[H2O Man]

6. I believe in freedom of speech.

The idea of accountability is a separate, though related issue. I think that on DU, we see a wide range of styles and content. I think the majority of people are sincere, though some are at times poorly informed. Others may be inarticulate, but folks on here tend to respond to the content of the message.

What has concerned me a few times is the phenomenon that in the good old days we refered to as the agent provocateur. In the past, with let's say the YIPPIES or American Indian Movement, we came to recognize these men and women by the way they always tried to say the most extreme crap possible. As the name implies, they provoke people in a group/crowd to do stupid, often high-risk and criminal things. But when the shit hits the fan, they are no where to be found.

It's true that this type of behavior is also common for older folks who never grew up. The type that are still behaving about the same at 50 as they were at 20. George bush is an example of this type of loud-mouth, pretending to be a tough guy, cowardly drunk. But there are other examples, and that's why I think people want to examine closely some of the foolish things that occassionally find their way on to the DU.

In general, I enjoy DU because there is freedom of speech, some healthy outrage towards this administration, some wonderful insight, and a dedication to healing our sick culture.

[left is right]

7. I believe in free speech

And (not but) I believe that all lies, half-truths and general misleads need to be confronted quickly and unceasingly

[stavka]

8. I am concerned by the lack of big media outlets for minority issues

...and that would mean almost all issues.

[K-W]

9. I believe the freedom of speech is the best way to ensure open discussion.

And thus should be protected. But I dont believe it is some moral absolute.

[Senior citizen]

11. No, but I selected other.

The French salons fostered free speech by barring ad hominem attacks. This policy permitted female intellectuals to take part in debates without being ridiculed on the basis of sex.

I like the idea of banning hate speech and incitements to genocide.

I'm opposed to anything that degrades other human beings. I fully understand that some people derive pleasure from torturing and degrading others, but I do not think their pleasure is more important than the human rights of everyone else.

I believe that freedom of speech was meant to protect the rights of the oppressed, not the rights of the powerful.

Speech should not be a commodity that can be monopolized by the highest bidder or the most totalitarian state.

I support a Fairness Doctrine, not just for the FCC and the media, but in all aspects of speech. The child who is bullied at school may theoretically have freedom to talk back to bullies and gangs, but in reality no such freedom exists.

DU does not have unlimited free speech. There are rules to create a space for those of us who respect those rules and to bar those who do not. I don't think it could work any other way.

The idea that if you don't agree with an idea, you can argue against it, doesn't work when the right-wing controlled media propaganda monopolies do not permit civilized discourse.

To me, freedom of speech should mean the right to speak truth to power, not the power to silence the truth.

[teamster633]

13. That, I can believe in...

[Senior citizen]

15. DU rocks!

Welcome to DU, 26yrTeamster. This is where it's at.


:bounce: :toast: :yourock: :toast: :bounce:

[DoNotRefill]

12. Yes, but it's free for EVERYBODY...

even if you hate it.

Don't like what somebody says? Don't listen. But trying to shut them up is WRONG. Because sooner or later, YOU will be pushing some unpopular speech, and will get muzzled, too.

[Senior citizen]

14. Most of us here just survived several years

of not listening. We WERE muzzled. There was only one point of view on the radio and on TV, so we didn't listen and we didn't watch. So it wasn't free for EVERYBODY it was only free for those who owned the media conglomerates.

Now we would like to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Those who hate fairness, justice, and democracy will insist that it isn't necessary, that the "market" should determine what the mass media airs. But we've had quite enough of market manipulation by corrupt profiteers, and would prefer a little bit of fairness, even if it limits their "freedom" to continue to shut us up.