Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Erosion of Free Speech

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 741 ✭✭✭tjhook


    salmocab wrote: »
    I’m genuinely not sure what your getting at.


    What you're saying would sound very natural coming from the mouth of a bishop in the 1950s. I'm asking if you would agree with the church taking a similar approach to free speech in the 1950s?


  • Options
    #33
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,364 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    tjhook wrote: »
    What you're saying would sound very natural coming from the mouth of a bishop in the 1950s. I'm asking if you would agree with the church taking a similar approach to free speech in the 1950s?

    The church would be free to make any statement they wanted, it’s up to their members to believe or not believe it. I wouldn’t agree that if people did certain things that they would go to hell but if the church want to make that claim that’s their business. Free speech without risk of consequence doesn’t exist anywhere on the planet.


  • Options
    #34
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 741 ✭✭✭tjhook


    salmocab wrote: »
    The church would be free to make any statement they wanted, it’s up to their members to believe or not believe it. I wouldn’t agree that if people did certain things that they would go to hell but if the church want to make that claim that’s their business. Free speech without risk of consequence doesn’t exist anywhere on the planet.


    So you'd be ok with the church going after and threatening the livelihoods of people who say things it doesn't agree with? It happened, and I wouldn't be ok with it.


  • Options
    #35
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,364 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    tjhook wrote: »
    So you'd be ok with the church going after and threatening the livelihoods of people who say things it doesn't agree with? It happened, and I wouldn't be ok with it.

    No I wouldn’t be okay with it at all. I’m honestly not sure how you arrived at that.


  • Options
    #36
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 741 ✭✭✭tjhook


    salmocab wrote: »
    No I wouldn’t be okay with it at all. I’m honestly not sure how you arrived at that.

    It was a question - I wasn't seeing a Yes or No before your response above, but now I'm clear.

    Can I take it then that you're also not ok with groups or mobs of people doing the same today?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,364 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    tjhook wrote: »
    It was a question - I wasn't seeing a Yes or No before your response above, but now I'm clear.

    Can I take it then that you're also not ok with groups or mobs of people doing the same today?

    No I’m not okay with groups making outrageous statements about what will happen to people if......
    those people obviously have the right to make those claims so long as it’s not hate speech but they also in turn aren’t free of people deriding them or protesting them and their nonsense.
    My point is that free speech is not free from consequence. They may not be prosecuted due to free speech but that doesn’t mean their standing in the community would be unaltered. We’re all free to think more or less of people based on what they say or do.


  • Options
    #38
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,859 ✭✭✭growleaves




  • Options
    #39
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,859 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Blah blah blah I'm in favour of speech unless it causes hurt feelings and of course you're not free from the consequences of your speech like being dipped into a large vat of sulphuric acid by little flint-hearted cultural dictators. That's called freedom of expression blah blah blah you're lucky you live in the 21st century


  • Options
    #40
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,364 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    growleaves wrote: »
    Blah blah blah I'm in favour of speech unless it causes hurt feelings and of course you're not free from the consequences of your speech like being dipped into a large vat of sulphuric acid by little flint-hearted cultural dictators. That's called freedom of expression blah blah blah you're lucky you live in the 21st century

    I’m sure your making a point


  • Options
    #41
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    growleaves wrote: »








    I think that cancel culture, and general wankery by conservatives in recent years (Trump being a prime example), has shown so-called liberals that being a complete arsehole is not some amazing game-winning move. If your inability to argue prompts you to just scream down the opposition and throw free speech under a bus, don't be surprised when the only people who are left to argue with are simply people who will shout louder than you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Sonic the Shaghog
    Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Sonic the Shaghog


    To be honest I think any free and fair society should enshrine the freedom of speech, the press etc akin to teh US in its Constitution

    Yes it has its troubles and some unsavoury types get to have have rallies but it's far better than risking the slippery slope

    It's of the things they have right IMO


  • Options
    #43
    The_Brood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 838 ✭✭✭The_Brood


    salmocab wrote: »
    No I’m not okay with groups making outrageous statements about what will happen to people if......
    those people obviously have the right to make those claims so long as it’s not hate speech but they also in turn aren’t free of people deriding them or protesting them and their nonsense.
    My point is that free speech is not free from consequence. They may not be prosecuted due to free speech but that doesn’t mean their standing in the community would be unaltered. We’re all free to think more or less of people based on what they say or do.

    The issue is not anyone disagreeing or criticizing you on social media, the issue is people - all kinds, from academics to writers but also and especially regular folk - having their jobs threatened and their livelihoods taken away because perceived "wrongthink" is immediately labeled as "hate speech." Students punished in school for thinking differently from their professors and peers etc. If you don't see that happening, you are in your comfortable socially-backed bubble and have your ears plugged. And endless more cases of people being successfully intimated and prevented from speaking their mind because of the consequences to their livelihood.

    If I believe in an idea, I would want it challenged and debated out in the open by those that feel differently. I would not measure my success by how many jobs I cost and how much fear of speaking out I instill in people.


  • Options
    #44
    i_surge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭i_surge


    RandomName2 wrote: »







    I think that cancel culture, and general wankery by conservatives in recent years (Trump being a prime example), has shown so-called liberals that being a complete arsehole is not some amazing game-winning move. If your inability to argue prompts you to just scream down the opposition and throw free speech under a bus, don't be surprised when the only people who are left to argue with are simply people who will shout louder than you.

    Only simple people act like that. They don't have the intelligence to debate the points so they roll on the floor and scream like children.


Advertisement