Freedom of speech V's verbal abuse?

Question

I just read two posted questions from makemesmile in the LGBT section. The first expresses her opinion on sexuality in what i would deem to be an abusive manner, (i'm sure there is a more tactful way to express this question.) The second gets offended because she got angry answers to her abusive question and demands freedom of speech. This is not the first time i have seen this on YA!!!

Do you think people will ever learn that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to abuse, discriminate, or promote prejudice?

woundbyte, if people bothered to take the time they would be able to express any opinion or belief without displaying discrimination or hatred. I don't have an issue with freedom of speech, i have strong issues with abuse, prejudice and discrimination which is passed off as freedom of speech!

Justin, i'm not talkin about insultind someone, i'm talking about outright verbal abuse. Or am i to assume that prejudice and discrimination is acceptable for you because i think you will find that you can be arrested for promoting either!

Answer 1

Moderation in all things, this is what I say.

Freedom of speech is important, but not at the expense of others. However there are some people who look for offence in anything, and they are the flip-side of this big coin.

It is important therefore to recognise the need for speaking your mind but to neither be offensive or take instant offence. It's all about sharing opinion.

Answer 2

I wish people would understand that the Freedom of Speech stops at yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. And basically that is what hate speech is, inflaming everyone who comes around it.

They feel their "right" in so many ways. Their right religiously, morally, mentally and obviously in life "style" as if there were such a thing. Therefore, they are "saving us." However, being ignorant that God is love and Christ having spent 33.5 years on earth and never mentioning homosexuality, must have had more important things on his mind, but they aren't interested in WHAT THOSE ARE. No, they would rather meddle in the bedrooms of others, swearing they are doing God's work, when in fact, they are not. How do I know, I was a minister for 13 years.

So, whats easier, working on your own life and doing what God wants, or staying miserable and harranguing others about their supposedly "sinful" life? The 2nd is of course, however, if YOUR not happy in your OWN LIFE, then your truly not a Christian. After all, friendship with God brings calmness, happiness, contentment, kindness and the rest of the fruits of the spirit. The only time you would ever even think about homosexuality is if you ran into one walking down the street, and NOT be fixated on them in life. I feel so bad for those who can't seem to find true happiness with God, it truly shows how far they are away from him.

Answer 3

Total freedom of speech is a myth. Our society has always had limits and boundaries within which that freedom could be exercised and rightly so. People who come online and think they can say anything and get away with it are deceiving themselves if they expect others to find what they say acceptable. No one should be allowed to say online what they could not freely say if they set up their soapbox at a busy urban intersection. There at least the hate-filled rhetoric only travels 50 or 100 feet. Here in Yahoo! Answers it travels instantaneously around the world to the eyes and minds of millions of people. Which is worse? Which ultimately causes more harm?

To those who claim that words cannot hurt and cause physical harm as guns and landmines can, I say check your history books. Revolutions, wars and all sorts of physical violence throughout history have usually begun with words and speeches inciting the masses, not with material weapons but with mind-altering words and phrases formed with the specific intent to mislead first and then to foment hatred and provoke physical action.

Answer 4

Well said, freedom of speech is there for oppressed people to get their voices heared not an excuse to be a retard. We don't wanna hear people talking this sh*te all day and they should piss off to a board so they can all abuse each other freely. Empty vessels make the most noise.

Answer 5

Unfortunately no. There will allways be new people coming along to make fools of themselves by pelting someone with insults rather than actually answering the question.

I suppose the best thing to do, is completely ignore these type of posts. They serve no perpose but to make you angry.

Answer 6

Why is the freedom of speech restricted? Because we want to prevent people from using it in ways that may cause others to suffer, I suppose. Please tell me if I got this wrong.

There are lots of things that people can say to each other that most likely cause others to suffer, but that nevertheless are fully legal to say today.

Suppose a woman asks me if she looks good and I say no and she gets depressed for a long time because of my answer. Then one can say that I have inflicted a large amount of suffering by using my freedom of speech. But I think everybody would agree that what I did should remain totally legal. (Even though maybe most people would say that I did a bad thing from a MORAL perspective.)

Suppose now that I call another woman so awful things that I actually commit a crime according to current law. But suppose she doesn't suffer as much from that as the woman in the first example suffered from me answering her that she doesn't look good. What I did to the second woman would still be illegal.

Apparently, some speech is legal even if it inflicts more suffering than some speech that is illegal. Apparently, the amount of suffering inflicted is not what determines whether certain speech is (/should be) legal or illegal. But then what should determine that?

The only way to eliminate that disturbing question is to either forbid all speech that may cause suffering (an unthinkable solution if you ask me) or allow all speech (actually not an equally unthinkable solution if you ask me).

Now you may say that the a compromise, however arbitrary and unexplainable, between those two extremes - this compromise being the current amount of restrictions of the freedom of speech - probably leads to less bad consequences than any of the two extremes would. But I don't think so. Let me explain why.

The restrictions of freedom of speech make people all over the world refrain from sharing certain kinds of thoughts due to fear of breaking the law. Especially on the Internet. It is possible that some of those thoughts would have turned out to develop into great, constructive movements that would have improved the living conditions for mankind or something like that, if people would have been allowed to discuss them freely with each other over the Internet. Those possibilities of improvements of the world are effectively prevented by today's restrictions of the freedom of speech.

For human beings, thought and speech are naturally connected. On the Internet, speaking is mostly replaced by writing, so there we have a connection between thinking and writing. The connection works both ways. Things that we never share with others, we also tend to stop thinking about, as we do not feel the necessary encouragement from others to keep thinking about them. Therefore, restrictions of the freedom of speech (including restrictions of what is ok to write on the Internet) automatically have the same effects that restrictions of the freedom of thought would have had. Do we want restrictions of the freedom of thought? If not, then we cannot restrict the freedom of speech.

Suppose there would be total freedom of speech all over the world. Then there would be much more free brainstorming going on in the world, something that in turn might give birth to splendid, formerly unthought of ideas that could improve the world a lot, with positive effects for an unimaginably large number of coming generations. Maybe those improvements of the world, put together, would be greater than the suffering inflicted by those who want to use freedom of speech for destructive purposes. We won't know before we try!

A brain that allows itself to think any thoughts whatsoever is more likely to come up with great ideas than a brain that forbids itself to think some thoughts. This has been proven by scientists, creativity teachers, philosophers and psychologist.

Now think of the Internet and its users as a giant brain. That brain should be allowed to work as fully as possible, don't you think? Even if some of its thought might not enjoy each other!

Answer 7

A lot of people have a problem with some topics and become abusive with their opinion because they have a problem with their sexuality themselves as they feel the topic is about them.

Answer 8

Nope

Answer 9

yes, that is freedom of speech where you can use abuse, discriminate, or promote prejudice

Answer 10

Isn't easy, certain people just refuse to learn.

But i assure you, most of those people play dumb, they don't really ask "innocent" questions, they make insulting statements. Pretty much like George W. Bush.