Ruth Malhotra, and Freedom of Speech

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

Wolfbelly
 

Ruth Malhotra, and Freedom of Speech

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Tue May 23, 2006 10:28 pm

www.latimes.com/news/prin...6503.story

A girl named Ruth Malhotra is suing GA Tech for her right to speak out against homosexuality... and since the school is publicly funded, I kind of agree with her. Religious freedom, despite the fact that I dislike organized religion (any organized religion) is tied closely to freedom of speech and so I can't help but feel that this girl should be able to say that "Homosexuals are going to hell." Keep in mind I'm 100% supportive of homosexuality, but I'm also 100% for freedom of speech.

What do you guys think? <p>Image</p>

User avatar
Capntastic
Aa, cracked glass!
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:09 pm

Re: Ruth Malhotra, and Freedom of Speech

Unread postby Capntastic » Tue May 23, 2006 11:09 pm

I figure so long as no one is going out of their way to publically denounce anyone else, it's alright, if done in moderation.

But of course, it is generally more acceptable to preach tolerance and love than discrimination and hate.


User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Ruth Malhotra, and Freedom of Speech

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Wed May 24, 2006 12:40 am

Everyone has a right to disagree. And everyone has a right to not listen. So, I can't see what the problem is. If it's not out-and-out harassment (which should be banned no matter what's coming out of the person's mouth ANYWAYS), there shouldn't be a problem.

Also: I don't like the liberal slant on that article one bit. <.< <p>

<div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>

Choark
 

Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda. Now and then.

Unread postby Choark » Wed May 24, 2006 6:00 am

This post is long and is speant mostly arguing with myself, <span style="color:red;">you have been warned</span>:

Bah, I don't believe in complete freedom of speech anyway. Quite frankly I think its one thing to say to your mates you have something against Black people, or Packies, and quite another to stand in the middle of the street and get a rally going saying they all should be deported or worse, cause they're scum, evil or just not as good as white folk.

Thankfully I'm not American so I don't have complete freedom of speech and I am very happy for it. While I'm free to do the former, if I tried to do the latter I'd be arrested and probably convicted, which is good in my opinion. Complete freedom normally means someones trying to be a complete ass somewhere.

So I think its one thing for Christians to teach Christians that being homosexual is an afront to God and everything holy and good in a chruch, and quite another to teach it in schools (well none christian schools) or be openly hostile to them in public. If there religion actually teaches it then thats the religion. Of course I'll be surprised if someone doesn't argue "Well if you can be openly hostile to Homosexuals for being against your religion, then nothings stopping you being openly hostile to Muslims, Buddists and the like. Techically they're lifestyle choices as well"

I'm not sure what this makes me but I just don't like the idea of someone walking down the street getting harrest and shouted out just because of whatever. So I believe in resistricted freedom! I suppose the major bad thing about this though is how restricted you are and how far it goes. So far I like what my country has *shrugs*. I have enough freedom to say whatever I want in private company and whatever I want in public as long as I don't try to be a racist homophobe bastard.

Really, really seriously though... Someone's going to court, fighting for there right to harress people. Doesn't anyone see something just slightly wrong with that? <span style="font-size:xx-small;">(Turn Off really really serious)</span> Suppose it says something on how seriously people take there freedom over there. "I have a God given right as a Christian American to prosicute and debase this select group of people and by God and The American Flag <span style="font-size:xx-small;">(*salutes* The other holy symbol)</span> I'm going to court so it is ruled by the constitution and laws which govern our fair states, that I can!"

As a complete side note:
Quote:
Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

I wonder what those Anti-Gay T-shirts were like? "Burn in hell you fags!?" "Gay, the other bad meat?" "Sausage Fests NO!" "Jesus loves, but not other men" Can you buy them or do you have to make 'em yourself? And I thought High Schools ban anyone for wearing T-shirts considering your meant to wear a school uniform. And schools with no uniform normally don't allow any pictures or messages on there T-shirts, be it "Born To Rock N Roll" with a picture of Goofy dancing to "I raped your mom last night and she was crap".

What does denouncing Gay Pride Month mean? Does this mean he said to a mate "Fucking Hell, pardon my foul language, but this month is a complete farse and I'll have nothing to do with it!" or does it mean he stood in the middle of the workplace saying/shouting "Any of you taking part in this gay pride month are sinners, evil do'ers and just plain bad people. You shall burn from the hatred of God and everything good! All you people, or parents or friends, are doing in this month is taking pride in your evil and flith!!" *coughs* Okay part two was a bit extreme but I'd be mad if I was fired talking to a mate about it but probably understanding if fired for the second bit. Of course I'd be angry if I was fired if it was also because they tried to make me join in any march as well but really didn't want to.

And eh, aren't all workers required to goto the training schemes the workplace sets up for them or face repremendation? Thats pretty much common practice anywhere.

Of course there aren't months completely deadicated to Jew Pride Month or even Muslim awareness week, nor does anyone get made to go on training excercises over how to deal with them either, so it kinda sounds like people are taking this whole Equal rights For Gays a little too far. <span style="font-size:xx-small;">(Oh My God some Americans taking something far too far!? I never saw that coming!!)</span> I'd say I'd get annoyed if people kept rubbing my face in something I don't like but then again, I do get a lot of things rubbed in my face I don't like and just deal with it and move on. Certainly never harrest people over it. Of course I've never gotten fired because of it either. Maybe Christians who believe in this strongly could set up a Christian Pride month instead, like the month after or before the Gay Pride Month.

Thinking about it.. What the heck is Gay Pride Month!?

I wonder if in the future when hiring people there's going to be a list saying "Must hire at least: 1 Woman, 1 Black/African American (cause all black people come from Africa...), 1 Asian, 1 Hadicapped and 1 Homosexual, or your company will be fined, sent to court, further fined and closed" If thre isn't that list already?

So eh.. yeah. I spent an hour writing this up and had nothing really to say! Enjoyment! How many things am i going to get shot down cause of this?

P.S. Anyone pointing out I had the freedom of speech to say all this... well... yeah I do. But I didn' say I dislike certain freedom of speech, just complete freedom. But thats a whole other ball game.

But really, going to court so you can harress people!? Wow. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;">HEROES DON'T NEED PANTS</span> </div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=choark>Choark</A]&nbsp; Image at: 5/24/06 6:05

User avatar
BrainWalker
✔+
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2002 8:59 pm

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda. Now and th

Unread postby BrainWalker » Wed May 24, 2006 10:29 am

I want a shirt that says ""I fucked your mom last night and she was crap." I'd give it to Shini for Christmas or something.

Anyway, this news article makes me sad, because it is yet another example of my people (that is to say, Christians) being giant fucking douchebags because they apparently think they're better than everyone else. I want to shoot that girl in the face, about 17 times. It doesn't bother me that she hates gay people, or even that she hates gay people because apparently "God" tells her to (clearly she speaks to some other God than I do), what bothers me is that she hates them so much that it is apparently offensive to her to not be able to offend them. What the fuck is that?

Having said all that, she should have the right to speak her mind. I can't deny that I'm kind of annoyed by all the touchy-feely conservative "Oh, you can't say anything bad about anyone ever" politically-correct bullshit that's been going around for the past couple years. I've never been a big fan of censorship, because people have the capacity to not fucking pay attention when someone is saying something that they'd rather not hear. Of course, speaking from experience, it is often difficult to fufill this capacity when you're emotionally charged by something that pisses you off. *shrug*

Anywho, I guess my stand is that it's important to be able to say what you have to say, but if you're going to say something intentionally belligerent, It's probably a good policy not to allow you to say it during a public rally of the specific group of people you hate. Free speech is one thing, but harrassment is just not cool.

... you know, from Cho's post, it occurs to me that the US is pretty much just one big ridiculous soap opera to Britian. They must get a lot of laughs out of us. <p><div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=brainwalker>BrainWalker</A]&nbsp; Image at: 5/24/06 10:30

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda. Now and th

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Wed May 24, 2006 11:01 am

Cho is mostly on the ball. And yes, companies pretty much do have a checklist of people they have to hire. If you're a wheelchair-bound, black, left-handed, blind lesbian who can still do a good job, you are pretty much guaranteed a position anywhere you damn well please because you take down like eight different minorities at a time. That's only a little bit of hyperbole.

Yeah, it's important that people be able to speak freely in a general sense. It's better, I think, to have complete freedom of speech than to restrict some, and have that twisted over years of dumb politicians to "Don't talk about the government being bad or we'll cap your ass." Then we start proving the ancient Greeks right in showing them that a democracy only leads to tyranny.

That said, it's still not complete freedom of speech. I can't go into a theater and shout "FIRE!" and expect to be protected under the first amendment. As I recall, "fighting words," as my history instructor put it, are also not protected under the first amendment; things like actively provoking someone's physical attack. Now that I think on it, this dumb bitch might fall under that exception.

Let's realize, though, that while her freedom of speech is, in this case, apparently protected, so is the freedom of speech of the much greater group of 'other people.' Where she can preach hate against a group, the group can preach hate against her specifically. They can make shit up about her. They can shout in her face that they aren't buying what she's selling. They can use the rumor-mill effect to fuck her year up if they so choose. The other people's apparent apathy towards her shows less an admirable "taking the high road" approach and more a stupid American apathy towards all kinds of shit. "Someone else will take care of it. It's not my business." Yeah, that's pretty stupid, and the smart people among us need to cut that shit out. The rednecks and religious right figured this out long ago, why haven't the rest of us? <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Wed May 24, 2006 7:31 pm

One problem with the "Some freedom of expression is good, and some not" though is where do you draw the line? In allowing the freedom for gay people to stand up and proclaim their right to be gay, we must provide an equal allowance for the other extreme, the freedom to stand up and proclaim that gay people aren't right. As much as I disagree with general hatemongering, it's kind of an inalienable right, right?

And if you do draw the line somewhere, how do you stop the line from being moved? To say that Ruth here can't proclaim the evils of gayness, who's to say that comments against intelligent design and creationism being taught in schools (as rough examples of hot-topics that multiple people are inherently against) are justified.


User avatar
Capntastic
Aa, cracked glass!
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:09 pm

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Capntastic » Thu May 25, 2006 3:47 am

Well, freedom of speech should be judged on a case by case basis.

A great example of symbolic speech that I'd like to see illegalized is those pesky anti-abortion folk who rally around my school once a year with giant posters of dead babies. I find it ridiculous, in poor taste, and very, very disgusting.

So, the place of the 'speech' is a factor as well, I'd say. This sort of thing would be more acceptable in front of a hospital or mayor's office. No matter what, it's still annoying and does not help their case at all. Besides, what high school student wants to raise a child?


Choark
 

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Choark » Thu May 25, 2006 8:30 am

I always love "The Line" argument. Its a wonderful thing to say "Where do you draw the line!?" because it always makes me want to grab a piece of paper and draw a line on it and hand it to them going "There's a line." I also love it that as soon as someone says you shouldn't have complete freedom of speech the most common knee jerk reaction is people believeing that one day the Governments going to stop them being able to say "Bee" or completely control them, making them say the sky is orange and grass is purple or somesuch.

I don't really have anything to seriously say to it though, other then I'm a guy in a country that has "A Line", its a pretty loose line that lets you tell almost any joke you can (because joking is serious buisness over here!) and you can get away with saying most things but we don't techically have complete freedom of speech. We want that we'd have to go over to America that has banned some of our adverts/shows because of what they say... wait... anywho... The line is there not that anybody notices it that much, but it can be crossed. So somehow we have survived with this line without becoming ultra controlled mindless puppets for our government (.. or have we?).

Of course at times it seems we can get away from saying more without getting into trouble then Americans do, what with all the sueing, imagary laws in movies/TV-series/games, and what-not that seems ripe in America. For a country priding itself on free speech it seems to have a lot of No Go area's. I often wonder if our line gives us more lee way, for some reason.
BrainWalker Said:
... you know, from Cho's post, it occurs to me that the US is pretty much just one big ridiculous soap opera to Britian. They must get a lot of laughs out of us.

Why do you think we don't bother importing half of your TV shows? In the end your News is far more entertaining, interesting and giggle inducing then any of your shows could ever be. Plus the added bonus of not having canned laughter, which always confuses me... Do the mass of Americans need a hint that a jokes been made or a cue saying "You're supposed to laugh now" so they can laugh? And if so, do any of them actually find anything funny when they laugh or are they just sorta trained to laugh on cue, going "Ho ho, a joke was made."

Truth be told its also a way to forget how messed up our own parliament and stuff is as well. Watching the House of Commons is a painful experience and not recommended for anyone, unless you want to see confirmation that other countries have it bad in there governments as well. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;">HEROES DON'T NEED PANTS</span> </div></p>

User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Jak Snide » Thu May 25, 2006 11:41 am

Hah, the watching a parliamentary debate is a lark and half. Robin Williams said "it's like congress with a two drink minimum," and he's about right.

Anyway, I'm with Cho on total freedom of speech not being a wonderful thing. To be perfectly honest the whole "freedom" thing in the states gets on my nerves a fair bit, since there's always some goon going on about his right to do this, his right to say that and so on.


Archmage144
 

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri May 26, 2006 1:24 am

The big hoody-hoo about "freedom" in America is largely a fallacy, anyway, which is kind of unfortunate. There's nothing wrong with people having inalienable rights, and you shouldn't be able to tell people they can't speak their mind just because you disagree with them or because their viewpoint is unpopular. If the NAACP is allowed to lobby in congress, there's no reason that the KKK shouldn't be allowed to do so; it's just that most people are going to automatically disagree with someone who shows up at the white house representing the KKK (partly because it'd be bad for their political career to agree, but that really just means it's an unpopular opinion). As a result, you don't really see certain groups trying to "speak freely" depending on how you define doing so.

Freedom of speech is, like most blanket rights, intended to run with the idea that it is better to let people figure out for themselves what is acceptable and what isn't. There's no need to have a law that says you shouldn't scream profanity in a restaurant because it's an unspoken understanding, and anyone who steps outside of that understanding is socially dooming themselves; isn't that the way small communities work, on the basis of reputation? I personally think that the more hands-off a government is, the better, at least as far as people's ability to do and say things that don't infringe upon the rights of other people. You obviously shouldn't be allowed to shoot your neighbor, but you should be allowed to badmouth politicians without being afraid of imprisonment. In the event that it weren't obvious, that sort of thing is the reason "freedom of speech" is a written law in America.

And as unfortunate as it may sound, you can't give freedom of speech to people on a case-by-case basis in the sense that you can't screen who can and can't speak freely; I hear all the time that "freedom of speech just encourages idiots to speak their mind" and such, but having some sort of requirement to earn your freedom of speech by proving you're going to speak "intelligent" (often "popular") opinions defeats the purpose of having inalienable rights in the first place.

The hoody-hoo I mentioned is the fact that most of the people who will blather on and on about "their freedom" are misguided nationalists who don't actually know that people in Europe or other countries that aren't the United States have "freedom." No one in the UK was being imprisoned for criticizing Tony Blair, last I checked, and even if you get people like these to acknowledge that "maybe people that aren't Americans have rights and freedoms in their own country, too" they'll still usually be convinced that "they don't have as many." It's always surprising to me how many people are all about "America, land of the free" and are simultaneously willing to give their "inalienable rights" away because "it's to catch the terrorists." It's ironic that the people who tend to exercise their freedom of speech lately tend to get denounced as unpatriotic, but yeah, FBI wiretaps, anyone? Though that's a topic for another discussion. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Kelne » Fri May 26, 2006 7:48 am

Clearly FBI wiretaps are justified under the lesser known right of Freedom of Listening.

It's always the lunatic fringe of Christianity you hear about, isn't it? Never the people you actually respect, who wouldn't touch this lot with a ten foot pole. The gist of their message always seems to boil down to this: "There is only one God, and He agrees with everything I say." A message so patently ridiculous that there's no point even listening to the details which will nevertheless be spouted at you non-stop.

That's the real problem with Freedom of Speech, I suppose. The people most inclined to exercise it tend to hold rather extreme views. Its saving grace, on the other hand, is that sometimes these extreme views genuinely need to be heard. "All men are created equal" would have been considered an extreme view at one point, at least assuming somebody was actually taking it literally. And at least the genuinely important views tend to actually spread over time. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri May 26, 2006 9:59 am

We actually had a discussion about extremes the other day (some friends and I) that was at least partly initiated by my saying that I didn't favor extreme viewpoints.

The theory is that for every extremely vocal right-wing person there will be some quantity of extremely vocal left-wing people and the two will ultimately be forced to favor a moderate solution that's between the two (because that's what compromise and getting majority vote is all about). Ideas like abolition, women's suffrage, and anti-child labor laws were all unpopular at some point, but a vocal "extremist" group managed to change things.

Since it's impossible to know what changes will really best benefit a nation of people in the long run, the best option is to let everyone speak, even the crackpots, until a compromise is reached. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri May 26, 2006 3:31 pm

Or until the majority gets used to the extremist idea by being subjected to gradient levels on the same theme in increasing order of potency. Politicians have seriously made that shit a science. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Mon May 29, 2006 4:34 am

Jesus, sorry guys. I would have responded to this sooner, but I've been a little busy because I suddenly seemed to get a life. Shocking I know, but can any of you relate to that? It's neat. <p>Image</p>

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Is he being serious!? Yeah. Mostly. Kinda.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Mon May 29, 2006 8:27 am

I remember when you used to have content in your posts. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Dr Ninja PhD
 

.

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Mon May 29, 2006 8:08 pm

I remember when you used to be cool.


Archmage144
 

Re: .

Unread postby Archmage144 » Mon May 29, 2006 10:37 pm

I remember when this thread was actually kind of a meaningful discussion instead of people taking shots at each other.

(P.S.: Priam's still cool.) <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

Dr Ninja PhD
 

Re: .

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Mon May 29, 2006 10:39 pm

Lloyd started it.


Wolfbelly
 

Re: .

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Mon May 29, 2006 10:40 pm

THIS IS A DAMN CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME!

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wolfbelly>Wolfbelly</A] at: 5/29/06 22:45


Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron

Yalogank