The debate "Freedom of speech protect insults against citizens" was started by
May 6, 2015, 2:00 pm.
40 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 4 arguments, I_Voyager posted 4 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 1 argument, unfitzangetsu posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Getmurked posted 2 arguments, evamara posted 1 argument, GetRekt posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
PsychDave, Mrcolaman, shinywhale, I_Voyager, libertarian_rebel, AnkGanu, toughgamerjerry, egzon135, Benzdick, skyfrancois_97, soullesschicken, unfitzangetsu, WordSpeller, cadzp9, Hanif_abdat, Bxat9, omactivate, Anas, mandala, LucyTheDebatorQueen and 20 visitors agree.
scooter6381, Getmurked, Bodaciouslady16, jonatron5, Violet, DarkAngelAnarchist, evamara, GetRekt, action007man, jedty, steady_current and 9 visitors disagree.
If you want to live in a mature society, you've got to talk about ethics and politics and philosophy. In order to determine what is right, you have to conclude upon what is wrong. In order to cut away psychological biases, you've got to expose your own views and ideas to criticism in conversations. The only way to do this without being self-deprecating is to get other people with different points of view to agree to compare those points of views, or to explore the points of views of those from the past. Once you do those things enough you realize that, as with all other things, there's an art and a logic to it. It's the art of strategy and the logic of philosophy, combined. And those are underpinning intellectual fabrics. Knowledge of them can let you understand a great many things. Since our societies are based on sciences, politics and economies, it is important to engage in debates about these things, to try and steer the course of society. Historically this is what seems to advance us, and we ought not ever stop doing it.
the main problem with a debate like this is that what is not an insult to me maybe the most insulting ever to another person. so it really matters about the person both giving and receiving the insult so there is no way to set a law as there is no way to actully define what a insult is in the way that it can be enforced. I also dont really agree with the law in Quebec as the two ways for a public service such as law enforcement, health care and others is government reviews which are long and complicated. The other being feedback from the public even if it is insulting to some of the people who work in those fields.
Insults are not protected by freedom of speech. They can be construed as hate crimes and harassments and a myriad of other offenses. To be put plainly: freedom of speech does not give you the freedom to say whatever you want. You have to abide by laws even then regarding your speech.
evamara, says the guy who is doing the same thing. And who cares how old you are, the older you are the smarter you are so I think he is the best person to be on this app. But based on your grammar skills I don't think you are very old and think you should at least learn to talk before you start debating. But that is just my opinions which I have the right to state because I have the right of free speech. But I did not insult you because I did not mean to be mean it is just really hard to understand people who don't talk right. It's like going into a Chinese or Korean restaurant near you and they have an accent that is just really hard for you to understand and so you ask them to repeat themselves about 10 times and then find out they were just saying "your dinner is almost ready." Oh and by the way, debating on this app is a hobby.
dear arent you a little bit older to make this kind of afirmations??? what am I saying? arent you a little be older to be in a app where you just judge things? dont you have hobbys?
I understand a whole lot better now and agree. we have a right to free speech, whether it be insulting and degrading or not, making it illegal seems unconstitutional. i dont see a valid reason for making someone pay 100-1000 bucks for a mere insult
You calling the idea absurd is to insult it. After all, "absurd" is synonymous with many other insulting words.
Picture Star Trek TNG's Data saying "Ah, absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate. Foolish. Stupid. Idiotic. Hairbrained. Inane."
Which is fine.
It's your right to be insulting if you wish. It's possible to use low-level insults to make a point - as you did - instead of using really harsh insults like "F you ya motha licka!" which accomplish nothing.
I agree with you that insulting people to get a reaction is annoying. I think of that as the gold standard for trolling and it's ridiculous. It doesn't advance debates, it just satisfies some emotional need. And you've got a good sense of how to respond.
But you'd agree with us that freedom of speech includes the freedom to be insulting (assuming the insult isn't also an assault.)
No one is suggesting that insults are the best way to communicate a point. The question is whether insults should be illegal and punishable by law. It stemmed from a law in a Quebec community making it illegal to insult police or municipal employees, which carries a $100 to $1000 fine. It came up during the debate over insulting religions. Insults are not a good strategy either in debate or in conversation to sway someone's opinion, but neither should they be made illegal. To make them illegal is problematic since what is insulting depends on the audience, meaning anything anyone felt insulted by could result in a fine. It is an extreme position for political correctness, but not an impossible one.
what?? this seems utterly absurd.
using insults to deter insults?
insulting people to get a reaction? no, a debate should be offering valid and reasonable arguments to back your claim,insults show lack of control and rude, compulsive behavior to try and halt the debate or win by insulting the person, none of which is a valid win.
if someone insults you or acts out, the best thing to do is tell them why they shouldnt do that, or ignore them
I fully agree, especially if the insult is directly related to your actions. If I insult someone to criticize their behavior, I can expect them to either explain their situation so that I understand why they behaved the way they did, to be completely ignored, or for them to insult me back.
Finally, I would like to point out that I am polymerized tree sap and you are an inorganic adhesive,so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction meets an elastic collision, causing it to return on its original trajectory and adhere to you.
I think they should. But the person giving the insult should surely expect a valid riposte by the person who they are insulted, or otherwise to be perceived as a fool.
You're a stupid-head, Psychdave, and you smell like cheese ;)
I meant it to be about the person doing the insulting. Should someone who insults another be protected by their right to free speech. I agree with you about both the right to express yourself, even if that is insulting to others, and the need to have a limit where it crosses the line into assault, harassment, and verbal abuse.
You have no right to be protected against speech if the speech is not also an assault. Only speech which is also an assault is something against which one might seek protection, because assault is... Assault!
You ought try and be reasonable. But the government cannot successfully make us behave nicely. All the unjustifiable imposition of force can accomplish is unrest.
I am interpreting the question asked as "Freedom of Speech vs Protection of Citizens Against Insults"
Specifically protecting a single insult, not harassment.