Free Discussion without random and vulgar Free-Speech

[RWStanding]

Free Discussion without random and vulgar Free-Speech
Freedom to Discuss is sensible altruist terminology for a sober exchange of opinion, that does not verbally assault a particular person. This does not preclude naming a person or group that is deemed to be morally deficient, while taking the risk of litigation in return. It is essential to free-discussion that non-personified groups may be criticised robustly, In a sober debate, a speaker who is of a particular religion or belief, may well condemn other contrary religions or ‘cultures’. If he believes such a fraternity will be sent to ‘hell’ by ‘god’ then it is his moral duty to state the fact, and defend his opinion in debate. It is the moral duty of an ‘atheist’ to condemn the tyranny he may see in religions. However, parading along public streets with outright abusive banners is not debate. Robust criticism of a national government or its representatives is essential, as against random criticism of a whole nation or state.
It is the manner of speech and behaviour which should be regulated, and freedom to discuss all subjects that must be defended.

[thedoc]

Free-speech and vulgarity are equal in importance, to use them in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms.

[Immanuel Can]

It is the manner of speech and behaviour which should be regulated, and freedom to discuss all subjects that must be defended.

Seems a good principle. Let's go with it.

[HexHammer]

Free Discussion without random and vulgar Free-Speech

Very good point and topic if I may say, currently too many rabiate people will suppress free speech if they find it going against their beliefs and threaten them with all kinds of obscene and terrible things!

Only cure I can think of is making social media license based, where 100% free speech are not allowed, so if you are deemed too vulgar or makes personal threats, then you are kicked from all social media for good, then maybe you can join the pleb media where metal disturbed people can rage all they want!

[Scott Mayers]

Free Discussion without random and vulgar Free-Speech
Freedom to Discuss is sensible altruist terminology for a sober exchange of opinion, that does not verbally assault a particular person. This does not preclude naming a person or group that is deemed to be morally deficient, while taking the risk of litigation in return. It is essential to free-discussion that non-personified groups may be criticised robustly, In a sober debate, a speaker who is of a particular religion or belief, may well condemn other contrary religions or ‘cultures’. If he believes such a fraternity will be sent to ‘hell’ by ‘god’ then it is his moral duty to state the fact, and defend his opinion in debate. It is the moral duty of an ‘atheist’ to condemn the tyranny he may see in religions. However, parading along public streets with outright abusive banners is not debate. Robust criticism of a national government or its representatives is essential, as against random criticism of a whole nation or state.
It is the manner of speech and behaviour which should be regulated, and freedom to discuss all subjects that must be defended.

You can't moderate any speech or it isn't 'free' speech, by definition. There is an unfortunate contradiction to reality with politics. You cannot have ANY laws nor limits of freedom to secure freedom. This is because what is 'free' for some individual, is not free to some other in a world with limited resources.

Because we live in society that treats it 'fair' to secure some right to OWN more than we can consume at any moment, we cannot ever have a fair system in favor of all without having some actual infinite resource sufficient to satisfy all people. This means that for any person to have one thing MORE than another, is equal to having an unbalanced power over the one who has at least one thing LESS than that person. As such, our only means without direct violence to appealing to others is the act of communicating. ANY limits to this should default to require we all have an equal distribution of resources by default. Otherwise, you deny the ones penalized from expressing themselves further for whatever they lack in resources. This would just mean that ONLY THOSE in power politically are the ones permitted to DEFINE what is or is not 'abusive' as "that which offends their power".

I disagree with 'hate crime' legislation as well as forms of moderation that isn't defined equal among participants on par with each other in power. If we ARE in actual equal power, any limits would then be just an etiquette of respect to which we should only try to encourage the relative 'abuser' to speak more neutrally only. But the emotions of those who appear to 'hate' are often presumed ON PAR or ABOVE PAR when this is itself in question. So the 'abusers' may actually be the potential ones being 'abused' when falsely interpreted as having "NO JUSTIFICATION" for their behavior. If you prevent any animal from the minimal needs, they WILL snap more readily. The act of their abuse MAY be the actual hint of some unseen abuse they ARE receiving, even if they are incorrect at expressing precisely what it is. In fact, their very 'ill' behavior is itself an expected behavior logically due to some deprivation of their real environment and something that more often assures its random unpredictability to which we who ARE able to eat better should try to address by presenting MORE options, not LESS. Punishment is more deserving against those WITH the power to moderate against the weak when their power is also directly evident.

[Scott Mayers]

When or where 'abuses' in speech occur, this tells us that the abuser is lacking fitness to some logical classification error either BY (1) those interpreting the abuse as such OR (2) by the abuser's own error in classification OR (3) by both. This requires looking at the real conditions of both the abuser and abused.

The problem exists in only one party if the actual classification problem occurs by only party uniquely. If it exists in both, neither party is correct and so cannot resolve this problem without both requiring a reassigned classification scheme. The problem is who should be the one to correct their classification scheme? Because this belongs to those in POWER, they ALWAYS end up defining what successfully becomes the classification. But if their power to define this is not sufficient to stop the abuse except BY FORCE, then it PROVES that they too are incorrect at their classification principles.

The only real solution is similar to a lesson about what to do when one appears to be more extremely violent: feed them first and foremost with the minimal necessities to diffuse their anger. Then and only then can you begin to determine if it is just all in their head. If they still 'abuse' when fed what they need, then they've proven they are being 'spoiled' by something environmentally.

I still don't think this suffices because of nature's contradictions though. We evolved to take advantage of our circumstances when permitted the license of freedom when opportunity presents more options to us. The evolution of this greed is itself evolved to maximize our storage capacity for the times when we truly did have to snap at any immediate advantage in a prior environment that limited access to these needs.

My suggestion to NOT censor can be resolved by censure (rebuke) but in ways we can do so without actual disrespect or insult of them with prejudice. To actually censor, is itself a violent form of behavior because its form HIDES uniquely those more powerful abuser's capacities to deceive better. Isn't one who hires a hit against another not MORE violent for its added power to deceive who the abuser is? If I have the power to MAKE another appear violent, am I not more culpable of the violence than the apparent direct violator others can see?

[HexHammer]

When or where 'abuses' in speech occur, this tells us that the abuser is lacking fitness to some logical classification error either BY (1) those interpreting the abuse as such OR (2) by the abuser's own error in classification OR (3) by both. This requires looking at the real conditions of both the abuser and abused.

Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..what kind of job does one such as you have?!?!?