"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky
Holocaust denires are going to prison for thoughtcrme in Europe and Canada. Do you agree with imprisoning people for unpopluar viewpoints?
2007-08-20 01:26:25 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Same here in US, if you dont agree with Bush zionist proganda and plans........................many headaches due to emf radiation and ultimately 'thought crime' prison will be established................next phase of US domestic spy survellance program.
2007-08-20 01:32:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. I don't like it, but it's necessary for a lot of reasons.
Wounds heal in sunlight and fester in the dark. Racism persists because people with valid complaints about the chosen solutions were silenced along with the haters. A great deal of vengance for that is being taken in the form of silent obstructionism. Thus the problem continues.
Shoot the messenger and you don't hear the news. A lot of problems get bigger when you don't act on them, because the warnings were squelched. Danger doesn't go away just by being ignored. And if someone has a greivance, it needs to be known while there is still time for Justice, rather than revenge.
Free Speech keeps the Peace. People who are talking, even when they are screaming hateful epithets, aren't pulling triggers. It's always easier to deal with even the most unreasonable people if you know where they are coming from. Holocaust Deniers especially fall into this category. When they speak up, you know who they are and what they are. If kept silent, they might gain power. In fact, censorship made the denial of the Holocaust possible. If Zionists hadn't worked so hard to eradicate the memory of the Gentile Victims, there would be no basis on which to question the killing of the Jews.
Free Speech upholds the Law. A crime is no less a crime for being successfully covered up. And a law is no more just for attempts to suppress petitions for redress of greivance, as Drug Law supporters have so successfully done.
2007-08-20 08:49:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
Which is to agree with Chomsky in some ways. It is not enough to say that we have freedom of speech when those who have the money to pay for ads, publications and cinematic extravaganzas can drown the voices of dissent. The corporate status quo has so trapped the minds of the world's citizenry that they can allow themselves to say, "You are free to say as you wish". When the time to express your self comes, you'll end up repeating anodyne mantras with the fervor of commercial jingles.
It is not enough to accept that others speak. One must consider all educated opinion and stand up against those who attempt to silence dissent. Otherwise, freedom of speech is exactly what Kierkegaard says, the opposite of Chomsky's practiced freedom.
By the way, did you hear about Jose Padilla? Tortured and alienated from himself. Where is the outrage? What is free speech good for when holding a political belief can land you in a military prison?
2007-08-20 08:46:13 · answer #3 · answered by Washington Irving 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are correct--legislating against speech--even scum like Holocaust deniers--is very bad policy. My view--let them talk--they will simply discredit themselves.
That doesn't mean there are NO limits on free speech--or that there are no consequences. On the first point, the state can legitimately intervene if speech consists of threats or clear attempt s to intimidate or cause harm to others (e.g. libel or slander).
As for consequences--when you see neoNazis (or any other enemy of freedom) speaking out, they invariably complain that their "freedom of speech" (which they would deny to others) is being violated when they are subjected to criticism. That is not the case--they should be able to say what they want--but others also have the right to speak--including criticizing these trash 24/7 if they wish.
2007-08-20 09:18:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hate is an irrational emotional response to people and or circumstances. Hate is the default position of a person who is either too lazy or too mentally deficient to understand the object of their hate...
Furthermore, hate has as many and usually more adverse effects on the person carrying it around as on the object of their hate. Hate blinds a person to the future, places undue physical stress on the body, and generally drowns out the joys to be found in our short lives. Acted upon hate usually leads to life-altering or life-ending repercussions.
All this being said, hate cannot be removed through negative reinforcement. So to answer your question, no, I do not agree with imprisoning people for having unpopular viewpoints. Even holocaust deniers. They are better marginalized in the court of public opinion.
2007-08-20 08:55:29 · answer #5 · answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the extent in which social responsibility is breached. Hitler exercised his freedom of speech right? A person may yell "Run for your lives! There is a bomb here!" in a crowded public building causing panic and stampede and injuries to those trying to get out the exits. See where there can be undo harm caused by unlimited free speech.
For viewpoints that are not slanderous and/or not risking of peoples safety and well being I am all for it.
2007-08-20 09:00:14 · answer #6 · answered by PrivacyNowPlease! 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Chomsky's right: if we deny freedom of speech to those whom we dislike or disagree with, we don't really believe in free speech.
Freedom of speech, however, is misinterpreted in this country. Our Constitutional right to free speech is intended to allow us to express our feelings about our government. It was never intended to allow cretins like Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, or Andrew Dice Clay to use offensive and vulgar language over our airwaves just for the sake of sensationalism, shock value, or monetary gain. There is still a time and place for such vulgarism, and that time and place is in the privacy of our own environments. In public venues, civility and respect toward others should remain the standard in a courteous society.
-RKO- 08/20/07
2007-08-20 08:41:06 · answer #7 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a good point about about Holocaust deniers. As disgusting as denial of the murder of 6 million people is, I'm glad we don't have denying this heinous crime codified. In the USA, you can say anything like that and there is no law to touch you, which is the way it should. be. You will, however, get all kinds of grief and people will look down on you and loathe you but that's about it.
But, no, freedom of speech is necessary. And I think Chomsky is full of crap in nearly everything he says that isn't related to linguistics. But he's right on this one.
2007-08-20 09:00:05 · answer #8 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no i dont agree with imprisoning people for unpopluar viewpoints cz they may have the right viewpoints
and they may see the truth better than us so we need to hear them and listen and if we dont agree with them we have to tell them y .we need to talk with each other in order to avoid conflicts
2007-08-20 08:39:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I believe in freedom of speech for everyone, as long as it does not endanger the public. IE ( yelling fire in a theatre ). No, people should not be imprisoned for not believing an obvious truth.
2007-08-20 08:31:20 · answer #10 · answered by booman17 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Chomsky is right and the reason is, everyone hates someone. When do you make exceptions?
I may not agree with someone's viewpoints, even if they are completely repugnant to me, but I will protect someone's right to express them. What happens when I want to speak my mind and I sincerely believe it is in the best interest of all, who will fight for me?
2007-08-20 08:46:07 · answer #11 · answered by Ellinorianne 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋