Freedom of Speech

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you think they should be allowed to do this?

[Sayonara]

Yes?

[5614]

NO. that is absolutely stupid.

 

over the past few years language has changed, swearing is now common.... this is clearly an adult who made this ban and will soon be removed [i think] when the current younger generations take over control of the country [once they're grown ups!]

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Personally I hate swearing and I think "Yay! Now I won't have to walk around in public with earplugs, and when I have kids I'll have to carefully shield them from that along with all of the other responsibilities of a parent! Whee! What fun!"

 

Or, if you wanted to be funny, you could say, "I hate &@#&ing swearing."

[Sayonara]

And there was me thinking that freedom of speech was intended to protect what people have a right to say, not the way in which they choose to say it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's actually a very good point...

 

I mean, while we're talking about swearing: What's so bad about it? What makes a word "bad"?

[5614]

if thats a rhetorical question, its a nice one; good point.

 

if you want an answer: its just what you make of it.

so 10 years ago, if you said a rude word then everyone would think that you were terribly rude and impolite.... nowadays, other youngsters think nothing of it, however the 'old generation' [no offense meant] will still find it impolite because thats how they were brought up.

 

hence i said in post #3:

this is clearly an adult who made this ban and will soon be removed [i think'] when the current younger generations take over control of the country [once they're grown ups!]

[ydoaPs]

does russia have freedom of speech? if not, then yes they can do that.

[swansont]

does russia have freedom of speech? if not, then yes they can do that.

 

Profanity is pretty much content-free, so I don't see how it inhibits freedom of speech anyway.

 

But, as was alluded in another post - what is considered profanity is arbitrary anyway. Generally, "Poop" is benign, "crap" is somewhat crass, but s**t is profane. But they all refer to the same thing.

[LucidDreamer]

Personally I hate swearing and I think "Yay! Now I won't have to walk around in public with earplugs' date=' and when I have kids I'll have to carefully shield them from that along with all of the other responsibilities of a parent! Whee! What fun!"

[/quote']

 

I don't like Christians. Their holy speak really offends me because I'm an athiest. We should ban words like Jesus and God so that my children don't have to be exposed to all that brain-washing mumbo-jumbo.

 

Note: Just making a point. I don't have anything against Christians.

[LucidDreamer]

And there was me thinking that freedom of speech was intended to protect what people have a right to say, not the way in which they choose to say it.

I disagree. Both should be protected. If the government restricted all the words that we could use to negatively describe them then our freedom of speech would be drastically compromised and the way you say something can have a big impact on communication. I don’t think the people should ever give the government power over their speech unless under very specific circumstances, such as hate crimes. We don’t really need swearing to communicate properly, but once you start signing away your rights it rarely stops. Who gets to determine what is considered a swear word anyway? The list of swear words never gets smaller, only bigger.

 

The article has a testimony from a teenage boy about how the police are always listening and you have to watch everything you say. That sounds a lot like the old USSR where the government would always by spying on the people, looking for anyone willing to speak out against them so they could threaten and imprison them. It starts with harmless laws against swearing and it ends up with the people lacking any kind of freedom of speech at all. The people should jealously guard their freedoms, even it means having to listen to some idiotic teenage boy who swears every other word.

[Kingpin1989]

"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire

[Pangloss]

Which is what a "liberal" is supposed to believe. But I've found that there are few things in this world that are more zealous in attacking free speech than a liberal ideologue faced with the prospect of having to listen to a sermon on Sunday. (grin)

[AL]

I mean, while we're talking about swearing: What's so bad about it? What makes a word "bad"?

The fact that uttering the word might induce a heart attack in an old lady, or cause a soccer mom to faint?

 

Kidding.

[ydoaPs]

a soccer mom to faint? soccer moms are known for having worse mouths than sailors.

[Pangloss]

Oh dear god yes. Given a choice between accidentally cutting off a pickup truck with a gun rack or a minivan with mom and kids on board, I'll take the former any day of the week!

[Phi for All]

I mean, while we're talking about swearing: What's so bad about it? What makes a word "bad"?

I don't think swearing is about freedom of speech, it's about shock value and disrespect. "Bad" words are used to either emphasize your point or get a rise out of your listener.

 

In both cases, the increased frequency of swearing becomes a problem. If you swear rarely, or even moderately, it has more of an emphatic effect than if you swear in practically every sentence out of your mouth.

 

If you can see that swearing is making your listener angry and you continue to do it, then you're just doing it to spite them and it's no wonder people think it's disrespectful. To me, your arguments must be pretty weak if you can only get people stirred up by swearing.

 

As we've seen in other threads, what is fine in one country can be shocking in another. The fact that some people don't like these words is really immaterial. What is more important is your intent in using them. Or over-using them.

[ydoaPs]

we're supposed to refrain from profanity on the forums, what constitutes profanity?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In both cases' date=' the increased frequency of swearing becomes a problem. If you swear [b']rarely[/b], or even moderately, it has more of an emphatic effect than if you swear in practically every sentence out of your mouth.

Great point there. I know people who swear every other word in a sentence when they're angry (i.e. someone takes their seat in a class).

Ugh. It's horrible. But what can I do? Bring a roll of duct tape to class and fix them up?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

we're supposed to refrain from profanity on the forums, what constitutes profanity?

If you need to know that, I can bet you use profanity a lot.

[ydoaPs]

what i meant was, everyone has a different idea of what is profane. how is it defined on sfn? that simple. sorry for the misunderstanding

[Phi for All]

But what can I do? Bring a roll of duct tape to class and fix them up?

I'm sure they would love for you to stoop to their level.

[Sayonara]

I disagree.

What? That's the law as it stands in the USA, which Refsmmat is erroneously using as a yardstick by which to judge other cultures.

 

 

Both should be protected. If the government restricted all the words that we could use to negatively describe them then our freedom of speech would be drastically compromised and the way you say something can have a big impact on communication. I don’t think the people should ever give the government power over their speech unless under very specific circumstances, such as hate crimes.

May I refer you to the television watershed, which protects your society's children from phrases such as c**ty ball-lick f**ksock shitters. You're proposing that this kind of control is counter-productive.

 

 

We don’t really need swearing to communicate properly, but once you start signing away your rights it rarely stops. Who gets to determine what is considered a swear word anyway? The list of swear words never gets smaller, only bigger.

Considering the extremely obvious trends in the media and in general public life I'd have to disagree. Words that were considered vulgar only ten years ago are now mainstream.

 

 

The article has a testimony from a teenage boy about how the police are always listening and you have to watch everything you say. That sounds a lot like the old USSR where the government would always by spying on the people, looking for anyone willing to speak out against them so they could threaten and imprison them.

Russian people in "Shadow of Communism" shocker.

 

 

It starts with harmless laws against swearing and it ends up with the people lacking any kind of freedom of speech at all. The people should jealously guard their freedoms, even it means having to listen to some idiotic teenage boy who swears every other word.

That's due to people being easily corruptible, not random law X that we don't agree is "right".

[JohnB]

Profanity is pretty much content-free, so I don't see how it inhibits freedom of speech anyway.

I agree with Swansont. To fight for the right to have non content in speech sounds like;

 

FRANCIS Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN ... I want to be one.

REG ... What?

STAN I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.

REG What!?

STAN It's my right as a man.

JUDITH Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

STAN I want to have babies.

REG You want to have babies?!?!?!

STAN It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG But you can't have babies.

STAN Don't you oppress me.

REG I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

(STAN starts crying.)

JUDITH Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.

FRANCIS Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.

REG What's the point?

FRANCIS What?

REG What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?

FRANCIS It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

 

We shall fight for your right to say nothing when you speak.

[LucidDreamer]

I agree with Swansont. To fight for the right to have non content in speech sounds like;

If profanity has no content or meaning then why are you arguing to make a law against it? You should be completely indifferent to it if it has no meaning. If profanity was equivalent to men having babies then you should have the same feelings towards a law against men having babies as you do about a law against profanity. People posting in this thread seem to have strong opinions about making laws against something that is content free.

 

I'm not arguing that profanity is a good thing' date=' only that the government should keep their paws off of our ability to express ourselves.

 

What? That's the law as it stands in the USA, which Refsmmat is erroneously using as a yardstick by which to judge other cultures.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe there is a federal law against profanity in the United States. It's possible that some states have made laws against it, but I believe its more in the jurisdiction of the cities or counties.

 

May I refer you to the television watershed' date=' which protects your society's children from phrases such as c**ty ball-lick f**ksock shitters. You're proposing that this kind of control is counter-productive.

[/quote']

I am proposing that the parents should be in control of what their children see and hear. The government should only empower the parent's control. Having certain channels that are profanity free is fine, but strict, all-encompassing government laws against profanity is a violation of free speech. I believe alot of the disuse of profanity on American channels such as NBC and CBS is due to self-enforcement.

 

Considering the extremely obvious trends in the media and in general public life I'd have to disagree. Words that were considered vulgar only ten years ago are now mainstream.

Exactly. That's because profanity and vulgar words are not strongly regulated by the government. We would have a much different situation if the government really made it their business to oppress the use of vulgar words. In the United States laws only become more numerous with a greater spheres of control.

 

 

That's due to people being easily corruptible' date=' not random law X that we don't agree is "right".[/quote']

That's only one-half of the problem. The other half of the problem is the complacency of the people as the government slowly erodes away their liberties. Freedoms are stolen bit by bit. The best place to stop it is at the beginning.