Invitation to discuss rights

[PaulS1950]

If you would like to voice your thoughts on the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, what they mean and any abuses you see then please join my group at:

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/itsyourright

 

If you don't wish to be part of the discussion please don't join the group.

Paul

[lemur]

The OP of this thread sounds like a practical expression of the logic, "if you want to freely talk about something, go somewhere that you're not censored." If this kind of logic starts permeating discourse, public communication is going to become somewhat nightmarish, imo.

[Athena]

The OP of this thread sounds like a practical expression of the logic, "if you want to freely talk about something, go somewhere that you're not censored." If this kind of logic starts permeating discourse, public communication is going to become somewhat nightmarish, imo.

 

Wonderful, an excellent disagreement for making a point.

 

I interpret timestamp's statement to mean, unless you are sincere and respectful, go somewhere else, and I am fully in agreement with that. Those who want to do nothing but attack others, and are not sincere and respectful would only hurt the discussion. I like this definition of moral - to know the law and good manners. This knowledge is what meant by the pursuit of happiness, and it involves the happiness of everyone. It has everything to do with raising the human potential for good to its highest level. Some people seem intent on reducing us to our lowest level, and that is why forums have rules. Timestamp is being assertive and making it clear what is desired here. I am perfectly okay with that. I believe we should have standards, and those who don't, should not be able to disrupt the activity of those who do.

 

Islam has made our understanding of morals vitally important on an international level, so I welcome discussions like this, and don't want them ruined by someone who just likes to make trouble.

 

Freedom of speech must be considered a human right, but that right does not mean the right to step on others. It does not mean it is necessary to have children and disruptive people in the boardroom. This can be a hard judgment to make; between only the disruptive person and the opposing voice that should be heard, but I think we can make this distinction.

 

Freedom of speech, must be understood as the freedom to reason. It is not the freedom to say and do anything, such as cover the statue of Mother Mary with cow dung, because that would mean having no moral standards. It would mean sanctioning immorality and ignorance, and that is not okay! Not only should we resist this in our personal lives, but as said, it matters on an International level as well.

 

Freedom of speech goes with a search of truth and rule by reason. Being disrespectful does not. By the good way, good manners are even more important than good laws. With good manners there is little need for laws. So we need to begin with an understanding of good manners.

[lemur]

Wonderful, an excellent disagreement for making a point.

 

I interpret timestamp's statement to mean, unless you are sincere and respectful, go somewhere else, and I am fully in agreement with that. Those who want to do nothing but attack others, and are not sincere and respectful would only hurt the discussion.

Well, I tend to agree but only because there has to be some way of dealing with people whose whole purpose of speech is to disrupt, obfuscate, and otherwise impede constructive democratic discourse. On the other hand, when someone is behaving this way because they feel that the discourse that's going on is creating cultural limitations of what is considered valid in the first place, it would be further autocracy to banish them for their point of view, no?

 

I like this definition of moral - to know the law and good manners. This knowledge is what meant by the pursuit of happiness, and it involves the happiness of everyone. It has everything to do with raising the human potential for good to its highest level. Some people seem intent on reducing us to our lowest level, and that is why forums have rules. Timestamp is being assertive and making it clear what is desired here. I am perfectly okay with that. I believe we should have standards, and those who don't, should not be able to disrupt the activity of those who do.

I agree as long as it doesn't result in a culture of "supremacy of the civilized." People should not have to assent to the manners of others as long as they aren't being actively mean or rude for the sake of offending. There's a fine line between rejecting someone for actively insulting and rejecting them because they didn't use a tone that conforms to your standards of politeness.

 

Islam has made our understanding of morals vitally important on an international level, so I welcome discussions like this, and don't want them ruined by someone who just likes to make trouble.

Fine, but you should at least give them the opportunity to express their opinion in a constructive way before banning them for trolling, imo.

 

Freedom of speech must be considered a human right, but that right does not mean the right to step on others. It does not mean it is necessary to have children and disruptive people in the boardroom. This can be a hard judgment to make; between only the disruptive person and the opposing voice that should be heard, but I think we can make this distinction.

Here's the harder question: can we censor people who abuse authority to dismiss opposing voices by strawmanning them as disruption? If you pay close attention, you can find many examples in which someone in a position of authority avoids listening carefully to people who don't meet their normative expectations for reasonable speech. In that case, should that authority figure be banned or should others just check/balance their dismissal by listening to and interpreting the speaker whose speech was at first dismissed as being disruptive or incoherent?

 

Freedom of speech, must be understood as the freedom to reason. It is not the freedom to say and do anything, such as cover the statue of Mother Mary with cow dung, because that would mean having no moral standards. It would mean sanctioning immorality and ignorance, and that is not okay! Not only should we resist this in our personal lives, but as said, it matters on an International level as well.

The point is why should one authority be sovereign over others? You and I may find it ridiculous, offensive, and unnecessary to cover a statue in cow dung but why should our opinion determine the right of someone else to do such a thing? This comes down to who has the right to regulate public expressions and activities and to what extent?

 

Freedom of speech goes with a search of truth and rule by reason. Being disrespectful does not. By the good way, good manners are even more important than good laws. With good manners there is little need for laws. So we need to begin with an understanding of good manners.

And you should also take into consideration how a regime of manners can be just as authoritarian as a regime of laws. People can abuse such authority to the same extent and ends as they can abuse any other form of authority. Then the question becomes how far power is willing to go to dominate people who refuse to assent to their standards of manners and behavior. When is it legitimate to exercise absolute power/sovereignty over another person? Imo, the only time you can legitimately exercise forceful intervention over others is when they are a danger to themselves or others. Otherwise, you can intervene but the level of power used should not exceed the gravity of the reason for intervening. Someone who uses obscenities to insult someone else publicly, for example, may be extremely rude but it would not be legitimate to tackle that person or otherwise use excessive force unless they were asked to stop and refused. Sometimes, people are poised to use the maximum allowable force against others simply because they dislike their behavior and that is unacceptable, imo. People should be given the benefit of the doubt and their expressions should only be subject to appropriate levels of intervention based on actual occurrences and not on a general attitude of suspicion or annoyance toward them based on prior or peripheral expressions.