Godwin's Law

That just made me say ‘wow’. So true!

Think about that for a minute, thanks ryan

There are practical limits to freedom of speech. The one most quoted is that you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theatre. There are other limits including good manners. IMO when a society puts “freedom” before “good manners” that society has passed its best before date.

Besides, this is not a public place. It is a private place owned and run by the Ticats. If anyone came into my home and was acting in a boorish way, I would ask them to leave. Would you tolerate bad behaviour in your own personal place if someone used speech you found offensive?

My ‘wow’ for the night.

Eat’m raw tomorrow!

:cowboy:

That is the only part of the conversation that matters. All the rhetoric about freedom of speech is completely irrelevant because the Ticats have no obligation to give anyone a platform.

"The one most quoted is that you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre"

It's also the most misquoted and misused when trying to convince folks of limitations to free speech. Those "laws" don’t put limits on the person yelling "Fire" They prevent you from violating the rights of others ( the right not to be trampled. Lol) There is a big difference.

Only time speech can/should be "limited" is when it's encouraging others to commit a specific criminal action of their own.

Freedom vs Manners? I'll take Freedom.

MtnCat.. I don't know if I should say thanks lol, the only time I ever get a wow is when it's in disbelief of what I just said/wrote. Which seems to happen alot

Yet there is already a law against yelling fire in a crowded theater. It’s called criminal negligence causing death, or reckless endangerment for the American version. There is also disorderly conduct, or the Criminal Code equivalent. Censoring the word “fire” is irrational. Why make laws about the words when the words didn’t cause the problem, the person who used them did. Punish them, yes but do not exclude the rest of us from using the words because one or two idiots can’t use speech properly.

There are other limits including good manners. IMO when a society puts "freedom" before "good manners" that society has passed its best before date.
I can not agree with you there. Your "right" (in quotes because it is not really a right) to not be subject to "bad manners" is no reason to censor speech. You do not have the right to not be offended. You do have the "right" to suggest to the speaker that the speech in question is "bad manners" and suggest to the speaker why, much like I did with ryan, and what they can do to be less offencive but that is where your right ends. Trying to censor speech because it makes you uncomfortable is dangerous because what makes you uncomfortable may not make others feel the same way; and who gets to decide what is bad or good speech? You could even add the slippery slope argument here but I'm not a fan of that line of thought.
IMO when a society puts "freedom" before "good manners" that society has passed its best before date.
I would suggest, and entirely agree with the exact opposite.
Besides, this is not a public place. It is a private place owned and run by the Ticats. If anyone came into my home and was acting in a boorish way, I would ask them to leave. Would you tolerate bad behaviour in your own personal place if someone used speech you found offensive?
That I can agree with totally. Except that the owners are not the parties who are trying to censor. It is a number of the visitors who are doing so against other visitors. If you came into my home and started asking other guests to leave because you didn't like what was being said, you'd be out first and then I would decide if the speaker was getting tossed.

What you have suggested here is the most dangerous aspect of political correctness. The 'social engineering" aspect or at very least the attempt to engineer behaviour or compliance with what some see as “bad manners.” Private or public, it is something that needs to be exposed, addressed and hopefully weeded out.

Amen. Oops, sorry for that ryan. :wink:

Freedom vs Manners? I'll take Freedom.
Me as well, every time.

This is a public forum and is subject to all elements of legal free speech as outlined in this countrys laws. The private owners have a right to censor and limit access. Two very different animals.

One of the issues with free speech in a democracy is that it is presumed to be part of one's citizenship - or at least one's active and visual participation in society. There are rights and obligations attached.

Thus in an open setting in which there is a framework in which we know others and are known by them, and in which we have equal status, we speak freely.

SO:

  1. This is an anonymous board... not a public setting.

  2. This is a closed environment. Closed environments have special rules but - in my opinion - those rules should be applied lightly and carefully. Forget the theatre illustration. Should it be considered part of free speech for one of us to enter a schoolyard and start describing graphic sex? Most of us would say no.

  3. Those who run CLOSED environments need to state the rules carefully and clearly and enforce them or conflict ensues. Is this Board an appropriate place to discuss religion, sexuality, or politics? Some of us say, "YES, " while others give a, "NO." Still, if one does remember "manners" then even these topics are usually considered okay in moderation.

  4. In an OPEN setting one obligation of a citizen is to exercise their rights responsibly. That means that "manners" - while not a ruling condition - should be taken into consideration. In a truly Open setting people have the right to express their opinion about the unmannerly and to shun them socially. This is the historic way in which conditions have been set on free speech.

  5. It's hard to find a clean dividing line between an OPEN and CLOSED environment in a free society. That's why we have disagreements in the stands about language around kids. Most businesses - and even democratic governments - err on the side of letting the people sort it out. Authorities get involved when one side or the other uses threats or intimidation.

Thank you for a solid analysis Mark. We are getting a bit off topic here so this is my last post on this subject.

I like your concept of how behavioural norms are formed (or should be.) I would rather see a public shun bad behaviour than a government ban it. Or, attempt to coerce conformity. i.e socially engineer compliance.

As for #4 in your list, a fine example is Canadian university campuses. Hard to distinguish open or closed there. Seemingly private institutions that receive considerable amounts of public money. And yet when you say " Authorities get involved when one side or the other uses threats or intimidation" I guess that you mean to protect the threatened or the rights to free speech. Except the opposite is happening. Political correctness has completely dominated the campus social and normative environment and the "authorities" seem to be caving in to protect those who would limit speech and freedom of expression, and are abandoning the rights of all to freedom in order to conform to a very narrow agenda. The control that movements like Third Wave Feminism have over the conversation, thought and expression on campus is, to me rather frightening.

Also, the hypocrisy of those who would silence others is impossible to ignore. Go onto any campus and listen to the anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric that is routinely accepted there. Take that same rhetoric in verbatim form and swap out America and Israel with any other "non-western" society and prepare to be expelled. That is the true danger. Using law to set an agenda. Or to make sure that a counter point or argument is not heard.

Perfect! was hoping Mark would pop into this thread. I wanted his thoughts being an ethics teacher if im remembering correctly.

We should "sticky" this thread. Opposing views and no ones called any one any names....yet! Lol

Oh Yea, You’re a stupid head! :wink:

lmao…