“You have the right for free speech but not the right to be heard.” I am totally against this claim and all that it stands for. Just because you don’t like hearing person A does not mean I don’t have to hear said person. Just because person A has fascist views does not mean you need to embrace fascism and censor their speech. You have the right to speak your mind even if it causes offence to another party as long as you do not force your own view on others. What are thoughts on this?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Can't possibly agree more. Don't block the doorways of businesses and stay in public. I am not actually sure how I feel about speaker systems, some venues are perfectly fine for them but I really think they can interfere with people in other situations. Setting up and blaring in park where families are trying to enjoy themselves... I have a problem with them. Walking up and down the beach,,, or the boardwalk and moving.... not such a big deal. (Face it, It can be hard to get away from a good PA system and enjoy your self.)
Completely agree, if you don't like something someone is saying you can debate the point, ignore, walk away and so on...
Unfortunately the nanny state is embracing all western cultures now.
“You have the right for free speech but not the right to be heard.”
Should be rewritten to mean: “You have the right for free speech but the people have the right to not listen.”
rmfr
You know, I would agree with all this, but just to use his fascist example, just look at what happened recently in Pittsburgh. Sometimes we allow to restraints on free speech and look what happens. I wish it wasn’t so, but we’re living in the real world.
You do not have the right not to be offended. You have the right to listen, to offer counter-arguments, or to walk away. You certainly do not have the right to use violence to stop others from speaking.
You do not have the right to go onto private property without invitation to exercise your right to speak. You do not have the right to cause a nuisance and discomfort to others with excessively loud public address systems over extended periods. It's appropriate to have laws controlling excessive noise. Noise is a form of violence that causes actual physical discomfort to people.
People with obnoxious, antisocial views, such as fascists, racists, and deists, should be encouraged to express those views openly and publicly. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. Nasty things breed in the dark.
Algebe, I used to agree with you until that Devil shot up the Tree of Life synagogue. We Jews aren't taking anymore chances. If someone makes threats or posts something totally untrue, I'm getting the authorities on him. You may call me a little taking it over the cliff, but I'm done with chances. Please take my comments with respect toward you, I don't mean anything harsh on you.
@Rivka: If someone makes threats or posts something totally untrue, I'm getting the authorities on him.
Making threats and saying something untrue are two different things. By all means those making threats should be reported and arrested. Those telling lies should be challenged, and if they slander people, they should be sued. In the case of America, more sensible gun laws would also be a step in the right direction.
Sadly there have always been murderous lunatics in every human society, and Jews are not the only targets. In the past year, people have been killed in France, Germany, Britain, Australia... To detect these defectives, we'd need to establish security forces along the lines of the Gestapo and Stasi.
I have to agree with Benjamin Franklin on this one. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
More sensible gun laws? I agree, but look what happened with alcohol in prohibition. The same would happen with guns, and you can never tell a nut from a good guy, so I'm not sure what to do about guns. To be honest, this country better do something or we're going to have to expect shootings like daily news, which, in some way, it already is. I don't claim to have the answers, I have no clue what to do.
Plus, Gestapo-like security wouldn't do much as people would feel oppressed. Our culture has to change. We have to get ride of bad video games and tv and educate kids. I'm opposed to censorship, but this may be our only option to survive.
Ya, Ben Franklin was great with words, but he didn't live in a time with mass shooting either. He's going on principle, not reality. It's a philosophical debate, I know: give up some freedoms for more security, again, I don't have the answers, but I'll tell you this: I'd rather live than have the freedom to own some gun. That's where I stand.
Interesting article here relating to gun control in Australia, Norway, Japan, and the UK.
"Compared with the US, Norway has about one-third of the number of guns per 100 civilians — and about one-tenth of the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people. Sociologists who study the Nordic model have found that social cohesion between citizens and the government goes a long way toward ensuring a (mostly) peaceful society. For example, an analysis in 2015 found that the number of fatal shootings by police in Norway in the past nine years was less than the number of fatal shootings by US police officers in one day."
This suggests gun control alone is not enough. So as well as strict gun control the US would need a complete reversal of "gun culture" in a broad section of the general population.
Read another about gun control legislation primarily aimed at eradicating handgun ownership after the Dunblane massacre in primary school, this has some success but with reclassification of laws to eliminate air guns from gun crime as well. However in recent years the figures for gun deaths are rising again, largely due to gun components from eastern Europe being relatively easy to obtain, using the dark web for instance, or manufacturing components using 3D printers to turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic for example.
Anyway here is the article...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-...
I am curious, does anyone think less guns, or stricter controls on how many guns are sols / available will increase gun crime? More specifically the type of mass shootings in schools that seems to be a recurring nightmare in the US? I am from the UK, so the culture is anathema to me really, but it's hard for me to see the justification for broad public ownership of hand guns.
@ Sheldon
I agree the US needs better gun control regulations. However, here in the US we also have the problem of people, like me, who live in the "Wild Lands" where I constantly have coyotes, wolves, and bears that actually come up onto the decks of the house. I have had packs actually come at me while I am working out in the backyard. I carry my Desert Eagle handgun for just such an event. I currently use ONLY blanks in the gun just to scare them off. I just do not feel killing them for being what they are. However, I also wonder how much longer those blanks are going to work. They just might start learning that the gun shots ain't hurting/killing them.
Also, I and me father were gun collector's. Most of my gun collection I inherited from him when he died. About half my collection were guns used by grandfathers and great-grandfather in WW1 and WW2. I only have two guns I actually fire: my Desert Eagle handgun and a 10-guage shotgun. When I hunt, I use a bow. I no longer hunt bear, thus the shotgun sits locked up with the gun collection. Eventually, I will probably sell my "collectible" guns since I no longer have children to pass them on. None of nephews want them. Thus, I am going to have to sell them.
However, I still feel a much tighter gun regulations would do a world of good, better than bad. However, here in the US, we still have a LOT of wild lands where people live and may need the protection from the wild life. Furthermore, I also feel a very deep psychological battery should be given to anyone wanting to purchase a gun. A process that should take at least 60 days of psychological batteries. Even the military does the same before they even think of training a person for weapons.
rmfr
Yes I do understand that we are dealing in generalisations, and the US is a big and very diverse country, both in terms of environment and culture. A good start would be to ban automatic and semi automatic weapons. Though I see your point as a single shot rifle you have to reload might be a problem in the scenario you describe. The law could simply make it very difficult for people to obtain such weapons, and look at the industry that has built up supplying them, and of course the cost of obtaining them.
It's not an easy situation to resolve, but I don't think many people in the US really believe doing nothing at this point is an option. Or perhaps they do, in the UK as I said public opinion turned against such weapons after the terrible mass murders at Hungerford and Dunblane.
America is much bigger country and popualtion, and though the UK is culturally diverse, there was a broad consensus about gun control after these horrific crimes. Especially Dunblane where all but one of the victims were children of 5 and 6 years old. Prior to these events there had been some support among sections of the public and even political support for gun ownership like hand guns and semi automatic weapons, this was swept away by public opinion after Dunblane.
Owning an air rifle over 17ft/lbs now requires fire arms certificate, and these are very difficult to obtain.
What happened at Tree of Life synagogue is a horrible horrible event and we should all endeavor to help make sure such an act of hatred and violence does not occur ever again.
That said, suddenly going from live and let live, to calling the authorities everytime someone says anything that could be construed as anti semitic at all is a rather extreme response to just one mass shooting on a synagogue here in the US. I abhor violence and feel it is never a good solution to anything, but I may mention a few issues with particular details of jewish tradition or religion etc, (as I would just about any other organized religion,) should I have the cops called on me?
There is at least 5 million jewish people living in the US. How many jewish people have died in a mass shooting/or other mass casualty event in the US in the last two decades? How many jewish people have died in car accidents on the way to their synagogue in the last two decades in the US? A number I guarantee is higher than the mass shootings.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
That's all fine, but mass shooting cannot be compared to a car accident on the way to Shul, as mass shooting is an intentional act which could be prevented. I'm not saying you can't prevent a crash, but the scale is far different and deserves some attention. Also, I'm taking anti-Semitism more seriously than in the past. I used to just kind of let it slide per se, to just ignore it. To give 'em their "freedom o speech." All anti-Semites want to kill us, they promote Nazism, which killed 6 million people, and if they had the power to do so, here, in america, they'd kill 6 million more. so ya, I'm calling someone because I DON'T want to deal with useless hatred. I'm taking chances with my life or the lives of others. Anti-Semitism is an indirect threat, it's masked, but the threat's there. Sorry, this is just how I view things.
But we have methods in reducing car accidents. So we should not accept car accidents as just 'shit happens', but rather as something preventable.
Whilst I see your point, I don't think it is a reasonable comparison as I can see the necessity of car ownership, but would need a lot of convincing anyone in an urban environment needed a hand gun, even more so any semi automatic weapon. No one needs an automatic weapon outside of the military and police tactical units IMHO.
This is not about stopping gun crime I think, but about taking every reasonable measure to reduce it, and to stop the needless proliferation of guns in the US, especially certain types of weapons. The way film makers revel in gun use in their films, even glorifying it doesn't help, you often see films where massive exchanges of automatic and semi atomic gunfire results in little more than some bullet holes in walls. It's a fine balance between portraying traffic scenes of violence of course, but perhaps some indication of the limitless unbearable grief of the victims families wouldn't go amiss.
Nothing easier or quicker than pulling a trigger, but the thought process that makes someone carry a gun in the first place needs to be tackled. As I said, it's as important a step to change gun culture, as it is to limit the amount and kind of weapons that Joe public can legally buy, or even illegally buy, which is a far bigger problem nowadays, as we know in the UK.
No easy answers doesn't mean there are no answers, and there are other countries who have demonstrated gun control can help dramatically reduce gun crime.
> “You have the right for free speech but not the right to be heard.”
I agree with this in the sense that I believe that free speech is a dual right:
a) freedom of speech [to speak whatever you want without obstruction]
b) freedom from speech [to not hear anything that you don't want to]
The dual right in its realisation consists in the optimal balancing of these two factors. To remain consistent, no speaker can be prevented from speaking. At the same time, however, no audience member should be hindered from leaving the situation if they wish not to hear the speaker.
EDIT:
Actually, there's a third aspect. Its not just dual right, there's also a third one:
c) freedom to speech [freedom to hear whoever you wish to hear speaking]
The balancing act works the best with this one introduced into the equation.
“You have the right for free speech but not the right to be heard.”
Another aspect of "being heard" is the media. All ideas do not deserve equal coverage. And no one has the right to be listened to or a right to another person's attention. That quote doesn't sound like censorship to me.
I dig the revision that arakish contributed above: “You have the right for free speech but the people have the right to not listen.”
Some interesting like for like comparisons on gun related killings as homicide in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081
Scroll down a little, they're a few years old obviously 2015 - 2016. The survey dates to 2017, here is a link to the survey:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-america...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-y...
"Thirty people will be shot dead in America today. On average. It could be more. If it’s less, then more will die tomorrow. Or the next day. The United States’s gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, according to a recent study."
Link to the study: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext
Again the article mentions the Dunblane shooting in the UK where 16 five and six year old children and the teacher who tried to protect them were murdered. Public opinion rose against hand gun ownership in an atmosphere of national grief, and from that point it was inevitable that stricter gun laws would result.
"Nine years before Dunblane, there had been Hungerford, where Michael Ryan went on a rampage through the Berkshire town, killing 16 people in a series of random shootings before turning the gun on himself. He had been carrying a handgun and two semi automatic rifles, for which he had firearms certificates.
The aftermath of Hungerford brought to an end the right to own semi-automatic firearms in Britain; they were banned along with pump action weapons, and registration became mandatory for shotgun owners."
It's interesting to note that prior to this there was some support in the UK for an "american type 2nd amendment act" to enable members of the general public to protect themselves. These two crimes effectively turned the tide among the UK population as a whole, as public opinion turned heavily against public ownership of handguns, and semi automatic weapons including pump action shotguns.
There is a certain strangeness that most of the politicians and celebrities posturing for gun control are surrounded by guards with guns.Apparently guns are OK to protect them, but common citizens are not so entitled.(Have you ever seen the weapons carried by the Pope's Swiss Guard?)
Once you can use fear to start disassembling the Bill of Rights, none of our Constitutional protections are safe.
I don't agree, and the idea someone in the public eye, especially when they are speaking out against gun violence don't need protection is irrational. Do protection agencies, or even professional bodyguards generally get involved in illegal shootings?
"Once you can use fear to start disassembling the Bill of Rights, "
Oddly inconsistent given you are attempting to use fear in that very argument to promote your own view? Does any member of the public who live in urban environment really need the "right" to easily buy semi automatic, or even automatic weapons? That idea seems to be based on exploiting people's fears about crime if I'm honest.
This also ignores the fact that many other countries manage to protect their citizens rights, whilst simultaneously having very strict gun laws, I live in one and my rights haven't suffered at all. There are simply too many countries where gun crime has been demonstrably reduced through gun control for the idea this "right" is a necessary one to be viable argument.
Why should someone in the public eye be entitled to more protection? Common people make up the vast majority of rape and murder victims. The Tree of Live people were not in the public eye. In truth, when you're in a life or death situation, the only thing the police can do by the time they get there is make a report and take the body away. Self defense is not the only reason, but it's pretty high on the list.
The US Constitution (as opposed to other nations) explicitly protects the 'to bear arms'. And it was second only to the free speech/religion. It ranked high on the importance partly because the aristocratic classes in Europe restricted access to the common folk.
"Do protection agencies, or even professional bodyguards generally get involved in illegal shootings?" Does a normal, legal gun owner generally get involved in illegal shooting? The answer to both questions is no. When it comes to long guns including 'assault rifles', in many years these number LESS than ax (and similar object) murders.
Now we have problems, in that our culture has greatly deteriorated during my lifetime (an hour in Chicago should convince you of that). When I was young, you could buy guns in any sporting goods store. During hunting season it was not at all unusual to see people walking along the road with rifles, or rifles in the back window of a pickup truck. In fact the first laws against public carry of rifles in California was after the Black Panthers started carrying them around their neighborhoods. (Incidentally the first mass school shooting in US history happened during the 'cultural revolution' of the '60s. Was that a breakdown point?
NeverHappened: "Once you can use fear to start disassembling the Bill of Rights, none of our Constitutional protections are safe."
I agree. However, as I said, I feel greater gun control is needed. As Sheldon said, why would anyone need a semi-automatic assault rifle? I shall be the first to admit two of the guns I have from my grandfathers in WW2 were automatics. They had been fully disabled by my dad. And I never re-enabled them. I do not need them.
I am a lifetime member of the NRA, twice over. I bought mine own membership and inherited my father's when he died. I fully support the right to bear arms. However, I am also against anyone owning semi-automatic assault rifles. Regular citizens DO NOT NEED them. Regardless. A semi-automatic pistol can do a great amount of damage without it needing to be an assault version.
Please explain why anyone, regardless of who they are, would need to have an assault weapon in civilian life.
rmfr
To overthrow the government? Not just one person, obvs. Like, you know - a thousand dedicated dissidents with assault rifles! That’s part of your American Constitution, isn’t it? To overthrow a corrupt government?
rat spit,
"That’s part of your American Constitution, isn’t it? To overthrow a corrupt government?"
It is actually part of the New Hampshire State Constitution.
"Article 10
Text of Article 10:
Right of Revolution
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.[1]
Article 11"
https://ballotpedia.org/Part_First,_New_Hampshire_Constitution
Well, shit! Looks like I’m moving to New Hampshire! Bringing my automatic with me! God bless Amurica!
Or wait. I should ask first. Is the government corrupt there?
rat spit: "Is the government corrupt there?"
What government ain't corrupt. Something me dad always said: "Even a government of one is still corrupt."
rmfr