andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2010-07-21 12:00 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Delicious LiveJournal Links for 7-21-2010

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-07-22 03:20 pm (UTC)(link)
it's better at oppressing free speech than free speech is combating the fallacies that lie at its heart
Clearly not true. Look around you and you'll see less and less religion, and more and more free speech. I think it's obvious which one is winning.

If I thought there were things out there that were liable to cause problems with free speech then I'd be worried, but so far as I can tell the only thing that causes this problem is people arguing that we should ban some speech because it makes them feel bad.

[identity profile] usmu.livejournal.com 2010-07-22 03:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Clearly not true. Look around you and you'll see less and less religion, and more and more free speech. I think it's obvious which one is winning.

Maybe in Western Europe. Religion is still huge in the USA, South America and Africa. People here tend to forget we're living in a part of the world that's the exception rather than the rule when it comes to religion. And even here it's still a problem, at the least occasionally. The orange marches in Ireland tend to be rather festive to say the least.

And don't get me wrong I'm not saying we should ban x, y or z right now. But I don't think an outright dismissal is the right way to go either. I think in some cases it can be a valid option and should be treated as such. There's enough reason to do so.


andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-07-22 04:10 pm (UTC)(link)
No, there isn't.

I don't think you understand my position here. Free Speech is not a means to an end for me. It's not something I endorse because it will lead to other things. It's a vital part of what I consider to be the basics for any kind of society worth living in. If you take it away in order to protect me from the fascists then you have, as far as I'm concerned, joined their side on that issue. Because they want to take away my freedom of speech, and so do you.

I feel the same way about the numerous laws brought in by Labour over the last 13 years - protecting us from terrorism by locking people up without charge was, from my point of view, an awful, terrible act, and one which I would not stand for. This kind of authoritarian approach is the major reason why I switched from voting for them.

Oh, and the US is less religious than it was 20, or even 10 years ago. See here for two fascinating graphs.

[identity profile] usmu.livejournal.com 2010-07-22 05:14 pm (UTC)(link)
For me it all boils down to a rather interesting problem. If you want to protect something, you'll eventually have to use its opposite to do so. If you don't you'll lose whatever you're trying to protect. And that loss is even worse. That doesn't mean you don't have to be very careful about what you do, as always, but at some point it might need doing IMHO. We'll have to agree to disagree.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-07-22 05:15 pm (UTC)(link)
For me it all boils down to a rather interesting problem. If you want to protect something, you'll eventually have to use its opposite to do so

That makes no sense to me. One does not prevent child abuse by raping children. One does not protect the Ozone layer by releasing CFCs.

But sure, I don't think this is being terribly productive :->

[identity profile] usmu.livejournal.com 2010-07-22 05:38 pm (UTC)(link)
It's interesting though. And as far as philosophical concepts goes it's true though: prepare for war if you want peace, that kind of stuff. But that's a whole different topic. :)
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only