- Do you think that having to be Politically Correct is an invasion of our Freedom of Expression
Freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, is often one of the hardest things for people to really grasp. You know that part in cop shows where the police say something like “You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right anything you say may be used in evidence” or whatever the local equivalent? Well, that’s 100% in-line with the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means nobody is allowed to prevent you from having your say. But people are 100% free to then judge you on what you do say, to hold it against you, to sue you if what you say is slanderous, to prosecute you if what you say is against the law, such as incitement to commit a crime, soliciting prostitution, treasonous, etc.
Nobody can force you to be politically correct, just like the police aren’t able to force you to give up your right to silence. It is simply that the right to speak, or not, does not make you immune from the consequences of using your rights to do wrong.
Like I say, rights and freedoms are a tricky business. The ‘rights’ of one person to play their music loudly may very well impinge on the rights of their neighbour to enjoy reading a book in silence in his/her own home. The rights of one person to speak can impinge on another person’s freedom to not have to listen. There is always a compromise, and by and large the law tries to find the compromise where everyone gets a reasonable amount of freedom without having too much of their own affected unfairly by the freedom of others.
You can play your music or cause a noise in your home, but if it is unreasonable, either in volume, or at the times you are doing it, the police may tell you to stop. You have the right to assembly, but if that causes too much inconvenience and disturbance to too many others, that too can be asked to stop, or result in arrests. You have the right to speak, but not to harrass, to offend, or be unreasonable about where and when and for what purposes you use that right.
When applying the freedom of speech, they don’t have the right to do that.
Because what is the basis for the right and wrong thing to say, for them.
Very true, and this is the norm of any fair/un-biased system since ages…
But sadly, now a days this is not the case.
If your speech doesn’t comply the agenda … you are done .
For me, it’s very simple.
You have the right to do or say anything unless it doesn’t harm anyone physically or mentally considering the effect on the long/short run.
For example, you do have the right to be and stay gay, but don’t have the right to spread the idea to affect other people’s mind.
You’re confusing two different things - moral right/wrong versus legal rights.
Morals can be personal, cultural, etc. Legal right and wrong are less fluid, and are written down.
When we are talking about Freedom of Speech we are always talking about legal rights, because the moral right or wrong of speaking is never an absolute, and not a ‘right’ at all. Someone can always ask you to shut up simply because they don’t like what you are saying, or even because they simply don’t like you at all. In such cases, the legal right is on the speaker’s side.
But what I meant is that based on that basis, the legal rights are built upon.
Because what makes it legal or illegal? the known system basis of right and wrong.
Like for the examples you mentioned, what revokes your right to play music loudly that disturb others? Based on that basis.
BTW, they go beyond that basis now, so it doesn’t matter .
I see that Freedom of Speech has never been existed …
Because they always strived to make it impossible, but now with the technology we have, I think it’s possible.
Look at the specific line I pulled to quote in my response. You see that I carefully chose the one where you had it down as individual tastes in what was morally right or wrong? Think about how that differs from codified laws that have to be passed through parliamentary/governmental process, after extensive debate, where both the debating and voting on that law is by people themselves selected by whatever governmental practices are used in that place/state?
See how that’s a big difference?
When it comes to the things above you speak of @Ammon I agree with what you are saying however I understand that these are issues that are policed by laws like disturbing the peace and unnecessary noise. When our societies accepted the change " it’s not what you say but how it is received" our freedom of expression has now been suppressed. Today we have to be careful just walking down a street. You look the wrong way at someone and the next thing your in court defending yourself from being a pervert. Politically correct was evident in Quebec Canada when Pizza shops were made to take down their signs as there is no word for Pizza in the French language. I have blundered in the past thinking an overweight woman was pregnant. Embarrassing to say the least but she did not sue me. today I’m not so sure.
In a realm where freedom reigns supreme, the essence of expression takes flight on wings of boundless creativity. It transcends the mere act of speaking, expanding its reach to embrace myriad forms: art, writing, music, and protest. A sacred right, it acknowledges the innate human longing to communicate and share ideas, unfettered by unnecessary shackles or repercussions.
Yet, let us venture forth to examine a flawed comparison. The act of remaining silent during an arrest, while serving a distinct purpose within the legal realm, cannot be equated to the expansive concept of freedom of expression. For this concept, its embrace extends far beyond the confines of a courtroom, permeating every facet of our public and private lives. While it does not shield individuals from legal consequences stemming from certain forms of speech, such as slander or incitement to commit heinous acts, it does demand that we safeguard against undue limitations and censorship, ensuring that the right to express thoughts, opinions, and dissenting views endures.
A narrow focus on judgment and consequences betrays a myopic lens, veiling the importance of nurturing a diverse and inclusive society. Rather than fixating solely upon holding individuals accountable for their words, let us foster a climate of dialogue, education, and understanding, where diverse perspectives can coalesce in pursuit of societal progress. The notion of political correctness ought not to be viewed as a societal imposition, but rather as a pathway to engender respect, empathy, and sensitivity towards marginalized groups. While individuals unquestionably possess the right to unfettered self-expression, we must not disregard the potential harm inflicted by speech that perpetuates discrimination, prejudice, or hatred.
The elusive art of compromise, although not to be disregarded, warrants caution as we tread its treacherous path. While certain limitations on speech may indeed prove necessary, such as in cases of direct threats or incitement to violence, the bar of proof must be set high, guarding against the unjust stifling of dissent or unpopular opinions. The examples set forth, such as the brazen blare of loud music, can find resolution in reasonable regulations that strike a balance between individual expression and the rights of others. A judicious approach may entail the establishment of noise curfews or designated areas where activities prone to generating noise may freely flourish.
The hallowed right to assemble, a cornerstone of freedom’s tapestry, warrants unwavering protection. While instances may arise where restrictions become necessary to maintain public order, it remains imperative that such limitations do not serve as a cloak for silencing voices of dissent or peaceful protests. We must vigilantly distinguish between harassment and offense, on the one hand, and legitimate expressions of dissent or criticism, on the other. Preserving the crucible of robust public discourse, even when it challenges prevailing norms, institutions, or the mighty, proves vital. The delineation of boundaries regarding what may be deemed offensive or unreasonable must be marked with meticulous care, lest we inadvertently cast a chilling pall over the landscape of free expression.
In democratic societies, freedom of expression reigns as an indomitable force, propelling the open exchange of ideas and nurturing the fertile ground of social progress. While conceding that certain limitations on speech may find justification, it becomes imperative that we approach such encroachments with the utmost caution, guarding fiercely the right of individuals to express themselves fully and to contribute to the rich tapestry of diverse opinions and perspectives.
There is indeed a very important distinction between someone causing offense (where it was reasonable and predictable that offense would be caused) and someone taking offense (where it was unreasonable or improbably for the speaker to have predicted it).
Intent has always been a factor in how the law is applied, and the level of responsibility. Intent is the main difference between murder and manslaughter, for example.
The French, (and by extension, French Canadians), have often been a bit of an outlier in terms of freedoms. Rather Ironic and a little sad from the nation that once so proudly proclaimed “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité”. For example, French schools famously banned Muslim girls from covering their heads with scarves under the rationale that immigrants coming to France had chosen to be French, and may not bring their own customs. Yup, really.
Political correctness and freedom of speech aren’t necessarily at odds but complementary for healthy dialogue. Ideally, there should be a balance between both. However, if the push comes, we should stick to freedom of speech as a basic democratic right and value. In cases where democratic values are at stake political correctness is secondary.
My belief is that the religious views are the only reason that we are still alive till this day, and that humanity didn’t get extinct from suicide.
Humans rely on imposing order upon the randomness of life, and we mainly do that through narrative and faith. That doesn’t always mean religion, but there is always narrative and faith. Social groups become a ‘culture’ by having some shared narratives and beliefs.
Look at how many will denounce other faiths and beliefs, citing the Big Bang Theory as being science, despite having no clue what might have gone ‘bang’ or where that thing came from, making it just as mystical and a matter of belief as any other faith or religion. Fact is that they simply choose to ignore the parts of the narrative they can’t explain with pure faith.
Whether your faith is placed in Religious institutions, or Governmental ones, or simply in your Neighbours, doesn’t change that there is at the base of it nothing but faith, and a narrative that lets you accept it.
Pretty much every culture or society has rules or social pressures against digging too much at the narrative. History is filled with neighbours turning against each other, with family betrayals, yet still the narrative is that a jury of your peers will result in justice, right? The Constitution of the USA certainly didn’t protect Edward Snowden, even when everything he said was in the clear interests of the citizens, against those lying to them.
Faith and Narrative. All society is based on it.
True, that can be summarized with:
Whether you liked it or not, your mind will worship something… (Consciously or unconsciously)
You choose; to be a religion, or you don’t choose; to be something else (desire, government, etc…)
You have seemed to use my poll to commercialize your religion and once again suppress our right to express our selves on the poll it self. You have not answered the poll you have used your right of expression. So here is my freedom of expression:
Step into a realm where the untamed wilderness stretches as far as the eye can see, a place where the spirit of self-reliance thrives and the art of survival is honed to perfection. Picture a landscape that commands both awe and respect, with rugged rocks jutting out like dangerous blades, their weathered edges glistening in the sunlight. The air is alive with the symphony of nature’s symphony, the whispers of the wind intertwining with the chorus of birdsong. Fragrant scents waft through the air, carrying the essence of wildflowers in bloom and the earthy musk of the forest floor. As you venture deeper into this pristine haven, you can almost feel the textures under your fingertips—the rough bark of ancient trees, the soft touch of moss clinging to damp stones.
In this wild embrace of nature, resourcefulness becomes a way of life, and the ingenuity of those who dwell here is palpable. Every structure tells a story of resilience, built from the materials at hand—logs hewn with precision, rocks meticulously stacked. The hum of tools echoes through the trees, the rhythmic thump of a hammer on wood and the scrape of a blade against stone serving as a testament to the human spirit’s triumph over the elements.
Living in harmony with the land demands adaptability and creative problem-solving. Solutions are born from necessity, the challenges of the untamed world fueling the flames of innovation. Each choice carries weight, as the advantages of this lifestyle reveal themselves amidst the demands it imposes. Solitude, the companion of the self-reliant, fosters deep introspection and a profound connection with nature. Yet, the call of community beckons, reminding us of the joys and responsibilities that come with shared existence.
But this wild existence, while liberating, is not without its own set of sacrifices. The forces that seek to impose political correctness and religious doctrines may seem like suppressors of freedom of expression. Yet, even as we question these societal constraints, we must acknowledge the resilience of the human spirit. We have evolved from our primitive origins, transcending the days of rocks and sticks to build marvels of human ingenuity. The pyramids and the colossal stones of Baalbeck stand as testament to the mysteries of our past, where the secrets lie hidden beneath layers of deception.
Imagine a world where our origins are intertwined with an extraterrestrial presence, where our DNA was shaped by beings we once revered as gods. Such a revelation would shatter the established order, exposing the lies perpetuated by religion to maintain control. For in the pursuit of power, gluttony takes hold, and truth becomes a mere casualty.
So, my friend, let us embrace the freedom of expression, the unwavering right to question and explore. Let us create spaces where diverse perspectives can coexist, where religious beliefs can find their voice without overshadowing the voices of others. May we celebrate the resilience of the human spirit, for it is through adversity that we find our strength. And in the face of suppression, we must stand tall, ensuring that our voices are heard, our freedoms respected, and the wild spirit within us preserved for generations to come.
You created your poll to be voted on (a yes or no question).
I didn’t commercialize my religion, as you didn’t commercialize your belief against religions,
it’s freedom of speech as you stated.
You have your own control over your thoughts, believes and what you want to write.
I didn’t suppress your right to express.
Embrace freedom of expression
I guess you just missed the point. The poll was not about religion until you made it so. When you posted a religious video on my topic you are using my platform to to broadcast your agenda to the people who came to view my poll. If you want to sell your religion start your own topic and sing away!
Firstly, I didn’t know its a religious video, still don’t know how it is…
Secondly, I remembered that video that I found funny, after @Dimitar_Dimitrov’s reply.
So, it was also a ‘freedom of speech’ that wasn’t meant to ‘commercialize’ a religion.
You can understand my replies with whatever perspective you want, it’s up to you.
A good way to have a clear view on people’s replies, to put emotions aside.