fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3027 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3027 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 099 secrets from Secret Submission Post #433.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"IT SAYS FREE SPEECH IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE? FUCK THIS ARTICLE I AM NOT EVEN GOING TO READ BECAUSE IT SAYS FREE SPEECH IN THE TITLE!"

I thought it was going to be an article like OP posted and it was going to go on about how Cho has the right to keep doing this because of his OMG FREE SPEACH!!!

I was wrong. I apologised.

I can't decide if it's the term (abused frequently by jerks who take it to mean "permission to be offensive") or the concept itself that bothers some leftists so much. I've seen both...

In all fairness, free speech is unquestionably and irreconcilably undemocratic.

You're going to have to back that statement up.

If the will of the people determines what is politically valid & right - which is the basic principle of democracy - then why should speech and expression be shielded from the will of the people? From a democratic point of view, democracy should determine what speech is and is not acceptable.

Free speech is part of the edifice of liberal / republican / constitutional rights and freedom. Which often comes along with democratic governance, to the point that we mostly conflate the two, but on a pretty basic level they're distinct & in some senses conflicting ideas.

I mean, it's kind of a pedantic point and I'm mostly just fucking around, but it is basically true. And in re: your comment, there are a few people on the left who actually do take that line or something like it. Not many, certainly not to the extent that it's a dominant train of thought in the average person on tumblr or whatever, but it's out there.

The thing is that democracy DOES determine what speech is and is not acceptable. Not through any established political mechanism but through how people act. This ties in with the concept of social norms, in that what's acceptable to say or do and what's not acceptable are dictated by the people, and can change over time. This is why doing something that goes against the grain, or even disagreeing with the majority, can be considered a revolutionary act.

What I mean to say is that, from a purely democratic point of view, the will of the people should be able to determine what is acceptable both from a social and a legal point of view. That is to say, there is an argument that if you believe in democracy, then democracy should be able to sanction speech.

No. Because all you need is one charismatic nut to convince people that [GROUP] is evil and needs to be exterminated.

I'm not saying that pure democracy is a good thing

I'm not advocating this as a system

There are good reasons we have a liberal constitutional structure on top of democracy

I'm saying there is this theoretical tension between democracy and liberalism, that the two aren't the same, that someone who supported democracy would not necessarily support liberal ideas like free speech, and that this tension does play out in actual political issues

I would argue that that's a failing on democracy's part rather than that of free expression.

Sure.

No. Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for your opinions.

In what world do you live in where people are not judged publicly for shit they say?

I legit don't know what you think I'm arguing

but to be clear here, when I say "acceptable", I mean legally acceptable, not socially acceptable

[ SECRET POST #3027 ]

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

Re: A relatively "balanced" article