freedom of expression and its followers

[mapuc]

I believe in free expression, even if they express something that I don't support and its about followers I'm going to talk about

If a person want to stand on something in the public area and talk warmly about Hitler, Stalin or some other known historical person or now living, or some religious person he or she should have the right to do so

On the other hand the persons who stop to hear this person and then applaud what he or she have said, that is in my world even worse

Best scenario would be, that after a while they stopped talking and went home because no one stopped to hear and applaud what he or she had said.

That's how I see it

Markus

[HunterICX]

So you're saying that people should be allowed to express themselves at the same time you tell them to not express themselves if they agree with something being expressed in public.



a bit of a contraditiction is it not?

For me if I disagree with a crowd that talks and cheers in public I just stay clear and not go in like some who can't resist to provoke them into a clash.

[Jimbuna]

You should get yourself to Hyde Park Markus

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/...peakers-corner

[Oberon]

It is funny how we're now hitting into the problems around free speech, and the occasional drawbacks that such a policy has, I think that the internet which now allows fringe viewpoints to gain a massive following which would never have been given to them before has probably helped in this.
However, that does not mean that such a policy is wrong and should be curbed. Of course at the same time you've got to accept that the power of human speech is far greater than most people give it credit for, particularly when you couple that power into some sort of organisation, be it religious, political or social. This is the point where 'freedom of speech' and 'prevention of hate speech' collide and do battle, and who shall we place our support behind? Do we support the right of a man to gather followers who believe that the Holocaust was just and right? Or do we forbid such a thing? Here on Subsim the latter is true, but in America the former. It's incredibly tricky, and gets even more so when people are careful with their words, being persuasive towards a hateful viewpoint but never radical enough that it sets off the alarm bells.
Clearly the right way forward is to challenge and counter such viewpoints with rationality and reasoned debate...however, I question how effective such things are...especially in this new world of rapid information and even faster disinformation, which has seemed to act as a support structure for the trenches that people have dug for themselves upon the grounds of their viewpoints. Neither side is willing to move any more, there is no persuasion because both sides are convinced that their viewpoint is correct, and therefore any attempt at discussion becomes much like the battlefields of the Great War, bogged down with little to no gains for great effort expended.
Have we reached Peak Debate? Well...probably not, because it is in human nature to attempt to convert others to your viewpoint, to try and turn them away from what you perceive to be the wrong ideas. It's been the basis for many global religions, the creation of global politics and the source of more than a few conflicts. However, I think we have certainly entered an era of viewpoint intolerance, where rather than being accepting of peoples viewpoints we seek to condemn or chastise them, and I do not consider myself holier than thou in this, I've been there and I've done it just the same as any other. It's very hard not to get caught up in the battle, especially when you see the casualties of it all around you, depending on what side you consider yourself to be on (for example; some would see the victims of the Cologne attacks as victims of tolerance and some would see the victims of Islamophobic attacks as victims of intolerance) and again, I stress that I do not say this as someone who is above this.
In short, there is no easy answer, no clear cut way forward, and no sole group or person that we can pin the cause of this schism on, especially since at the root of it, this is a schism that dates back as long as mankind has existed, and it will continue as long as mankind exists, perhaps if we ever merge the collective consciousness of humanity there might be some form of equilibrium as we realise that at the end of the day the things that unite us are greater in number than the things that divide us, but I think such an event would be unlikely to take place easily, since it links to another great battle of humanity, the individual versus the collective.
At the end of the day though, I think I'd rather live in a world with free speech than in one without, even if I disagree with what some people say whilst using it.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It is funny how we're now hitting into the problems around free speech, and the occasional drawbacks that such a policy has, I think that the internet which now allows fringe viewpoints to gain a massive following which would never have been given to them before has probably helped in this.
However, that does not mean that such a policy is wrong and should be curbed. Of course at the same time you've got to accept that the power of human speech is far greater than most people give it credit for, particularly when you couple that power into some sort of organisation, be it religious, political or social. This is the point where 'freedom of speech' and 'prevention of hate speech' collide and do battle, and who shall we place our support behind? Do we support the right of a man to gather followers who believe that the Holocaust was just and right? Or do we forbid such a thing? Here on Subsim the latter is true, but in America the former. It's incredibly tricky, and gets even more so when people are careful with their words, being persuasive towards a hateful viewpoint but never radical enough that it sets off the alarm bells.
Clearly the right way forward is to challenge and counter such viewpoints with rationality and reasoned debate...however, I question how effective such things are...especially in this new world of rapid information and even faster disinformation, which has seemed to act as a support structure for the trenches that people have dug for themselves upon the grounds of their viewpoints. Neither side is willing to move any more, there is no persuasion because both sides are convinced that their viewpoint is correct, and therefore any attempt at discussion becomes much like the battlefields of the Great War, bogged down with little to no gains for great effort expended.
Have we reached Peak Debate? Well...probably not, because it is in human nature to attempt to convert others to your viewpoint, to try and turn them away from what you perceive to be the wrong ideas. It's been the basis for many global religions, the creation of global politics and the source of more than a few conflicts. However, I think we have certainly entered an era of viewpoint intolerance, where rather than being accepting of peoples viewpoints we seek to condemn or chastise them, and I do not consider myself holier than thou in this, I've been there and I've done it just the same as any other. It's very hard not to get caught up in the battle, especially when you see the casualties of it all around you, depending on what side you consider yourself to be on (for example; some would see the victims of the Cologne attacks as victims of tolerance and some would see the victims of Islamophobic attacks as victims of intolerance) and again, I stress that I do not say this as someone who is above this.
In short, there is no easy answer, no clear cut way forward, and no sole group or person that we can pin the cause of this schism on, especially since at the root of it, this is a schism that dates back as long as mankind has existed, and it will continue as long as mankind exists, perhaps if we ever merge the collective consciousness of humanity there might be some form of equilibrium as we realise that at the end of the day the things that unite us are greater in number than the things that divide us, but I think such an event would be unlikely to take place easily, since it links to another great battle of humanity, the individual versus the collective.
At the end of the day though, I think I'd rather live in a world with free speech than in one without, even if I disagree with what some people say whilst using it.

,,

well there's plenty out there that fear your speech I also believe they also have mental issues worse than mine,, Americanism not Globalism