PDA

View Full Version : Who is more committed to freedom of speech and open debate?


Nyx
12-16-2006, 10:50 AM
Who is more committed to freedom of speech and open debate?

Steppenwolf
12-16-2006, 11:10 AM
Leftists.

No one really does, but the theoretical foundations of the left at least revolve around freedom of speech and democracy. The right is nowadays re-shaping itself as some sort of champion of free speech only because of its powerlessness.

Kriger
12-16-2006, 11:15 AM
The Left?

Hah. That's a good one.

Thanks to the Liberal Lefties, censorship is at an all time high.

Can't say this, can't say that. Don't care if it is truth, can't say that.

Steppenwolf
12-16-2006, 11:20 AM
The Left, certainly, does not lack hypocrisy.

Ahknaton
12-16-2006, 11:21 AM
The right, because of it's emphasis on individualism over collectivism. Free speech is an individual right.
The right is nowadays re-shaping itself as some sort of champion of free speech only because of its powerlessness.
This is only really true of the extreme right e.g. fascists and neo-Nazis. Arguably these are leftist ideologies in many ways anyway. Classic right-wing conservatism (the kind that used to be called "liberal" before the term was corrupted by American leftists) has always been very pro free-speech, with the exception of pornography.

Steppenwolf
12-16-2006, 11:36 AM
The right, because of it's emphasis on individualism over collectivism. Free speech is an individual right.
The right also emphasizes inequality and in that sense, not every individual should be able to express himself.

This is only really true of the extreme right e.g. fascists and neo-Nazis. Arguably these are leftist ideologies in many ways anyway. Classic right-wing conservatism (the kind that used to be called "liberal" before the term was corrupted by American leftists) has always been very pro free-speech, with the exception of pornography.
Classic conservatism only functioned when nations had strongly defined moral idiosyncrasies. Conservatives are for free speech only in things which belong to a limited realm which they deem acceptable. This is already a constraint in itself.

Vasily Zaitsev
12-16-2006, 11:41 AM
Advocating for freedom of speech and open debate is almost exclusive to groups that are not yet powerful.

These things become annoyances or even threats once you are making policy.

As it stands in the West, we hear the most whining about free speech from the right because they are largely powerless.

Ahknaton
12-16-2006, 11:46 AM
The right also emphasizes inequality and in that sense, not every individual should be able to express himself.
This is a valid point, but it has tended to be economic inequalities that have prevented the powerless in capitalist society from having a voice rather than state sanction. Of course under more extreme right-wing states this is not the case. I'm not sure it's valid to put right-wing conservatives on the same continuum as right-wing dictators like Pinochet and Franco, as if there is a smooth gradient of views that transitions from one to the other.
Classic conservatism only functioned when nations had strongly defined moral idiosyncrasies. Conservatives are for free speech only in things which belong to a limited realm which they deem acceptable. This is already a constraint in itself.
This is another valid point and illustrates the need for conservatives to endorse nationalism and oppose multiculturalism for their policies to remain feasible.

tempus fugit
12-16-2006, 11:56 AM
Hmmm.....well, this test might prove useful:

1) One day, walk around town or college with a hammer and sickle T-shirt.
2) Next day, walk around town or college with a swastika T-shirt.
3) Note which day drew more condemnation and calls for censorship.

raskalnikov
12-16-2006, 12:14 PM
Hmmm.....well, this test might prove useful:

1) One day, walk around town or college with a hammer and sickle T-shirt.
2) Next day, walk around town or college with a swastika T-shirt.
3) Note which day drew more condemnation and calls for censorship.


I believe that this answers the original question.

Oblisk
12-16-2006, 12:17 PM
I would say Left, since they are more "repressed."

Ahknaton
12-16-2006, 12:20 PM
Perhaps it's better to ask this question in context: who is more committed to freedom of speech when they are in power?

Also, are we comparing communists with fascists, or leftist social democrats with right-wing conservatives? If you compare right-leaning countries like Australia and America with socialistic countries like Sweden and countries ruled by leftists like Germany, it's pretty clear that the former are much more committed to free speech. Sweden jailed a guy for posting on his blog that he was sick of Swedish women being raped by "immigrant hordes". And Germany has all that retarded bullshit about banning the swastika. As for whether communists or fascists value free speech more (historically), that's a tough one actually.

WFHermans
12-16-2006, 12:33 PM
Germany under Hitler had "Entartete Kunst" exhibitions where people could look at perverted jewish "art".

If in the present Germany someone would try to organise an exhibition with national socialist art, the exhibition would be closed, the artworks would be destroyed, and the organisers would land in jail.

WFHermans
12-16-2006, 03:39 PM
Advocating for freedom of speech and open debate is almost exclusive to groups that are not yet powerful.

These things become annoyances or even threats once you are making policy.
It's true it goes like this. A good example is the present government of the USA compared to the original revolutionary government of the Founding Father revolutionaries.

Frederic the Great, King of Prussia, tolerated all dissent however, saying that he didn't care about criticism because he was sole ruler anyway.:whip:

MrAngry
12-16-2006, 03:45 PM
The extreme right, rewrite truths, exagerate and couldnt lie straight in bed. :)

sugartits
12-16-2006, 04:31 PM
I voted for 'rightists'. It is a bias.

Winston
12-16-2006, 04:41 PM
Ahknaton sums it up well. When it comes to regimes at both extreme edges of the political spectrum, it is a hard choice to make, but when we are talking about the more moderate governments which rule the civilized world currently, leftists are clearly more prone to attacking freedom of speech. You only have to do a run down of each country, determine whether the government is more left or right leaning, and then look at the laws that have been put in place. Those who voted for 'leftists' need to think about it more carefully.

Helios Panoptes
12-16-2006, 05:02 PM
The extreme right, rewrite truths, exagerate and couldnt lie straight in bed. :)

What about the extreme left?

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-16-2006, 05:03 PM
Do you mean real conservatives or do you mean Bush? Bush is a neo-conservative?

Kriger
12-16-2006, 05:19 PM
Do you mean real conservatives or do you mean Bush? Bush is a neo-conservative?

Bush is a white elite with a self-interest agenda.

But then, most politicians are in the elite self-interest category.

Arminius
12-16-2006, 05:36 PM
The Left?
Hah. That's a good one.
Thanks to the Liberal Lefties, censorship is at an all time high.
Can't say this, can't say that. Don't care if it is truth, can't say that.

I must agree with this. One can take a look Germany or any other "tolerant" nation. Speaking freely one's thoughts is on a low priority for freedoms. The minorities now have a right not to be offended, which supersedes the native population's rights. However, at the end of the day, any radical system will not like people speaking out against it, so neither the far sides of the spectrum will do either. The middle is probably the best.

Berianidze
12-16-2006, 06:13 PM
I would say the center before I'd say the left or right; moderates, liberals, social democrats, and even libertarians in general seem the most open to debate. I know for a fact I'm not committed to freedom of speech nor am I open to debate (just being honest).

Helios Panoptes
12-16-2006, 06:20 PM
I would say the center before I'd say the left or right; moderates, liberals, social democrats, and even libertarians in general seem the most open to debate.

I agree that moderates are most committed to free speech. Also, right-leaning moderates tend to be more open to it than left-leaning because the latter type is inclined towards PC groupthink, which impedes freedom of speech, whereas the former is more committed to individualism.

Berianidze
12-16-2006, 06:24 PM
I agree that moderates are most committed to free speech. Also, right-leaning moderates tend to be more open to it than left-leaning because the latter type is inclined towards PC groupthink, which impedes freedom of speech, whereas the former is more committed to individualism.
Agreed. There is nothing tolerant at all about politically correct speech codes. They are inherently against the very ideals for which liberals are supposed to uphold. They essentially favour sensitivity to diversity over pluralism.

Leshrac
12-16-2006, 06:49 PM
Leftists.


LMFAO. Belgium is the perfect example of why you're dead wrong.

It's 100% social-left dominated and our free speech is nonexistant. Even saying you don't agree to the government can be awarded with years of jail in certain cases.

Bullshit to the leftist "combat for freedom", it's a joke.

The left encourages "unique thinking for the whole group" and breaks down everyone who don't agree, the right encourages initiatives and freedom of thought.

Don't reply with assumptions or "great theories", i'm living this shit every day, i know what i'm talking about.

bardamu
12-16-2006, 08:20 PM
Libertarians are the most dedicated to free speech hands down. Free speech is such a holy grail to libertarians that it not even their coming to power would endanger it.

Geist
12-16-2006, 08:20 PM
Neither extreme if left to moderate views will adhere to free speech. It is in their antagonistic nature to censor the other side if they get power.

Janus
12-16-2006, 08:28 PM
I voted "Rightists".

Starr
12-16-2006, 08:36 PM
but the theoretical foundations of the left at least revolve around freedom of speech and democracy

that is what they say, but they do not practice it.

kultron
12-16-2006, 08:51 PM
Anyone who votes the right is more oppressive compared to the left is a fool.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#The_Psychology_of_Modern_Leftism

Kodos
12-16-2006, 08:57 PM
I agree that moderates are most committed to free speech. Also, right-leaning moderates tend to be more open to it than left-leaning because the latter type is inclined towards PC groupthink, which impedes freedom of speech, whereas the former is more committed to individualism.

Basically.

Carlos Danger
12-17-2006, 01:57 AM
Which is more socially harmful, suppression of free discussion about sex and religion, or about race and immigration?

Tough call.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-17-2006, 02:00 AM
Race and immigration is worse.

I don't want society to be over-sexualized anyways, and in the tragic event that religion can't be questioned its not going to kill you, just question it in secret.

Carlos Danger
12-17-2006, 02:07 AM
Q. did priests suddenly begin assaulting boys very recently, or was public knowledge of such things merely suppressed in the past?

bardamu
12-17-2006, 03:01 AM
Q. did priests suddenly begin assaulting boys very recently, or was public knowledge of such things merely suppressed in the past?

I think 2 things are different now than in the past, 1- the number of homosexual priests has been in the ascendant therefore emboldening homosexual priest within the Catholic church, and 2- western society at large has become more effeminate and passive, thus emboldening bad priests even more. In the rural or urban ethnic neighborhoods of yesterday men were more apt to take matters into their own hands and settle things personally which probably kept bad priests, and all manner of other misanthrope, in line.

Vasily Zaitsev
12-17-2006, 03:09 AM
I'd argue that the proportion of pedophile priests has likely spiked recently.

The priesthood used to be a place of solace for homosexuals seeking cover or help. But with Stonewall, the resulting gay liberation movement, and the subsequent removal of shame our society attaches to homosexuality the priesthood has become less appealing to queers. I don't think its a coincidence that the generalized acceptance of homosexuality is contemporaneous with an increased reliance on lay preachers by the RCC.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, are still in a position where their sexuality is socially stigmatized and legally prohibited. Thus they are still likely to seek concealment and treatment within an organization like the Church.

il ragno
12-17-2006, 03:17 AM
The spike in fag priests is mostly recent due to their mostly-recent infiltration into, and control of, several major seminaries.

Heh. Figures homos would be drawn to semenaries, huh?

Hartmann von Aue
12-17-2006, 03:58 AM
Who is more committed to freedom of speech and open debate?

Has "free speech" ever genuinely been considered a value in and of itself?

It seems to me that free speech is abandoned the moment liberal revolutionaries who claim to value "liberty" take power.

In the past, a man's words were taken more seriously because maintaining society demanded a greater degree of loyalty and respect for authority from the individual. Reputation and Honor were defended with swords or pistols.

What is the purpose of "free speech?"

Open discourse is supposed to lead to a better understanding of truth. However, when reading a paper or walking into a typical library, does anyone really sense that the content one finds is the result of "open discourse?"

Liberalism has established, over time, a practical monopoly on the press and the system of education. This transition has been going on since the suppression of the Jesuits.

This system of propaganda is a far more serious threat to "the truth" than simple prohibitions against certain kinds of statements.

There is a conspiracy of history, there is a domination of the intellect by mass media that controls thought more effectively than any state prohibition ever has.

Here's an interesting quotation of Lord Chesterfield about it:

Such gross local prejudices prevail with the herd of mankind, and do not impose upon cultivated, informed, and reflecting minds. But then they are notions equally false, though not so glaringly absurd, which are entertained by people of superior and improved understandings, merely for want of the necessary pains to investigate, the proper attention to examine, and the penetration requisite to determine the truth. Those are the prejudices which I would have you guard against by a manly exertion and attention of your reasoning faculty. To mention one instance of a thousand that I could give you: It is a general prejudice, and has been propagated for these sixteen hundred years, that arts and sciences cannot flourish under an absolute government; and that genius must necessarily be cramped where freedom is restrained. This sounds plausible, but is false in fact. Mechanic arts, as agriculture, etc., will indeed be discouraged where the profits and property are, from the nature of the government, insecure. But why the despotism of a government should cramp the genius of a mathematician, an astronomer, a poet, or an orator, I confess I never could discover. It may indeed deprive the poet or the orator of the liberty of treating of certain subjects in the manner they would wish, but it leaves them subjects enough to exert genius upon, if they have it. Can an author with reason complain that he is cramped and shackled, if he is not at liberty to publish blasphemy, bawdry, or sedition? all which are equally prohibited in the freest governments, if they are wise and well regulated ones. This is the present general complaint of the French authors; but indeed chiefly of the bad ones. No wonder, say they, that England produces so many great geniuses; people there may think as they please, and publish what they think. Very true, but what hinders them from thinking as they please? If indeed they think in manner destructive of all religion, morality, or good manners, or to the disturbance of the state, an absolute government will certainly more effectually prohibit them from, or punish them for publishing such thoughts, than a free one could do. But how does that cramp the genius of an epic, dramatic, or lyric poet? or how does it corrupt the eloquence of an orator in the pulpit or at the bar? The number of good French authors, such as Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Boileau, and La Fontaine, who seemed to dispute it with the Augustan age, flourished under the despotism of Lewis XIV.; and the celebrated authors of the Augustan age did not shine till after the fetters were riveted upon the Roman people by that cruel and worthless Emperor. The revival of letters was not owing, neither, to any free government, but to the encouragement and protection of Leo X. and Francis I; the one as absolute a pope, and the other as despotic a prince, as ever reigned. Do not mistake, and imagine that while I am only exposing a prejudice, I am speaking in favor of arbitrary power; which from my soul I abhor, and look upon as a gross and criminal violation of the natural rights of mankind. Adieu.


Recently General Pinochet's grandson made a speech at his funeral defending him.

He is being forced out of the Army over it.

The "Enlightened" claim to won for us free speech. Why should anyone believe them?

"A lie is only a vice when it does harm. It is a great virtue when it does good. So be more virtuous than ever. You must lie like the devil, not timidly, not for a while, but boldly, and all the time." -- Voltaire, 1736

Berianidze
12-17-2006, 04:09 AM
Libertarians are the most dedicated to free speech hands down. Free speech is such a holy grail to libertarians that it not even their coming to power would endanger it.
I'd say property rights and "freedom to contract" rights would be the only things that fundamentally trump free speech to libertarians. That is why they are one of only few groups of people who look back at the Lochner era with favour.

Hartmann von Aue
12-17-2006, 04:10 AM
Q. did priests suddenly begin assaulting boys very recently, or was public knowledge of such things merely suppressed in the past?

Obviously people wanted to hide it when things like this happened in the past. (remember people are hearing reports of incidents that occurred over decades)

Do you really think it's the general behavior of priests to assault boys?

St. John Chrysostom said "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Obviously there have always been weak, evil, and perverted priests.

Society as a whole is more demoralized than ever, the Church is divided and demoralized, and there are bishops who actively discourage vocations of the spiritually minded or who have a "traditional" (that is, genuinely Catholic) understanding of the faith.

Permanent Instructions of the Alta Vendita (http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=294535394&part=1)

il ragno
12-17-2006, 05:56 AM
Let's not forget cocksucking Prots and rectum-reaming rebbes! Though you'd have to literally be on fire to draw the media's attention away from Cat'lick catamites at the moment.

Helios Panoptes
12-17-2006, 05:57 AM
You said "catamite." I hadn't seen that word used in years until I used it in the mod lounge last week. Interesting.

antibuddha
12-17-2006, 02:26 PM
Is this question being asked from a generally historic stance, or regarding the current political environment? If the former, "leftists", if the latter "rightists".

Steppenwolf
12-18-2006, 07:56 AM
I shall no longer think of myself as rightist, if the right supports universal free speech.

bardamu
12-18-2006, 02:06 PM
Let's not forget cocksucking Prots and rectum-reaming rebbes! Though you'd have to literally be on fire to draw the media's attention away from Cat'lick catamites at the moment.

You have that backwards, it's cocksucking rebbes ...

हिन्दुस्तान
12-18-2006, 02:23 PM
Rightists but not the extreme right.

Fade the Butcher
12-18-2006, 03:34 PM
I always get banned faster on rightwing messageboards.