![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Free speech spout off.
Dec. 30th, 2003 10:45 pmI got into an interesting discussion here that had desolved into a free speech debate. For your edification, and so I have a record of this since it turned out pretty good, I post my response and point of view on free speech.
"Free speech is one thing, but when it becomes hatred and discrimination it is something quite other."
As a lover of free speech, I vehemently disagree with you. People have the right to hate as much as they want, as long as they behave within the laws of the land (no trespassing, no assault or battery, no destruction of property, etc...). They can even express that hatred using profanity in public places (though livejournal doesn't count as public - nor does most of the internet - and I'm not sure of the TOS on this topic for lj). That is free speech, the ability to say anything one wants (with a few restrictions for the purpose of maintaining public safety - e.g. not yelling fire in a crowded theater). Discrimination does not fall under free speech, however, and so falls under other, fairly complex laws.
Kya has been incredibly polite in expressing her opinions, and deserves nothing but the highest respect for holding such an opinion in such a manner, a manner which allows for open discussion and disagreement without harsh feelings on either side. She strikes me as an excellent example of a Christian, this comment meant positively of course (I happen to think Jesus had some good ideas and sounds like a cool guy to hang out with, I just don't worship the entity he did).
Discrimination is a thornier issue. U.S.A. federal institutions and the organizations using U.S. federal money can't discriminate (just ask the Boy Scouts). Private organizations have more leeway; although the ACLU champions many anti-discrimination lawsuits, there are places where discrimination makes a certain amount of sense - like in a church. I would never ask a religious organization to hire me when I don't ascribe to that religion. Yes, that is discrimination on their part (and mine) - on religious grounds even - but it's discrimination by a private religious institution, not the federal government, which is a much more complex issue. Then, of course, one gets into the actually meaning of the word 'discrimination' instead of the rhetoric, which is the actual interesting part of this discussion, as far as I'm concerned. It's not immediately relevant, however.
If you believe in speech only for views you agree with, then you don't believe in free speech, by definition. It is an irony that one must accept bigots in order to not become one, but it is a true irony.
"Free speech is one thing, but when it becomes hatred and discrimination it is something quite other."
As a lover of free speech, I vehemently disagree with you. People have the right to hate as much as they want, as long as they behave within the laws of the land (no trespassing, no assault or battery, no destruction of property, etc...). They can even express that hatred using profanity in public places (though livejournal doesn't count as public - nor does most of the internet - and I'm not sure of the TOS on this topic for lj). That is free speech, the ability to say anything one wants (with a few restrictions for the purpose of maintaining public safety - e.g. not yelling fire in a crowded theater). Discrimination does not fall under free speech, however, and so falls under other, fairly complex laws.
Kya has been incredibly polite in expressing her opinions, and deserves nothing but the highest respect for holding such an opinion in such a manner, a manner which allows for open discussion and disagreement without harsh feelings on either side. She strikes me as an excellent example of a Christian, this comment meant positively of course (I happen to think Jesus had some good ideas and sounds like a cool guy to hang out with, I just don't worship the entity he did).
Discrimination is a thornier issue. U.S.A. federal institutions and the organizations using U.S. federal money can't discriminate (just ask the Boy Scouts). Private organizations have more leeway; although the ACLU champions many anti-discrimination lawsuits, there are places where discrimination makes a certain amount of sense - like in a church. I would never ask a religious organization to hire me when I don't ascribe to that religion. Yes, that is discrimination on their part (and mine) - on religious grounds even - but it's discrimination by a private religious institution, not the federal government, which is a much more complex issue. Then, of course, one gets into the actually meaning of the word 'discrimination' instead of the rhetoric, which is the actual interesting part of this discussion, as far as I'm concerned. It's not immediately relevant, however.
If you believe in speech only for views you agree with, then you don't believe in free speech, by definition. It is an irony that one must accept bigots in order to not become one, but it is a true irony.
