Freedom of speech.

**Badjelly** · 19th November 2008, 08:07

Originally Posted by Ixion

Found it. Phew. Not very offensive.

And even less funny.

**Beemer** · 19th November 2008, 10:10

Sometimes I bite, especially if it's something I feel strongly about, but often I look at who's posting and think "he/she's doing it to stir" and don't bother. Happy to give my opinion but sometimes it's not worth the hassle.

**Marmoot** · 19th November 2008, 11:02

Originally Posted by Usarka

I blame the black catholic lesbians.

black young chinese asian catholic lesbians students driving hondas...

**ManDownUnder** · 19th November 2008, 11:12

I draw the line where it broaches topics in a manner I wouldn't.

I also take the viewpoint that others can take or leave what I think, on the condition they give me the same courtesy.

Easy really.

**Indiana_Jones** · 19th November 2008, 16:57

"You have the right to free speech. As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."

-Indy

**jrandom** · 20th November 2008, 12:19

Originally Posted by Forest

You are quite welcome to form a male only gym if you want to.

But, dude, that would be gay.

**Badjelly** · 20th November 2008, 13:21

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

"You have the right to free speech. As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it." -Indy

Man that's one ugly avatar you've got there. Time for Adblock, i think.

**alanzs** · 20th November 2008, 14:05

This is the internet. People can and do say anything. I have the right to not read it, just like we have the right to turn the channell on the tv when we don't like something. I believe in freedom to speak.

**Badjelly** · 20th November 2008, 16:11

Originally Posted by alanzs

...just like we have the right to turn the channell on the tv when we don't like something.

Mrs Jelly doesn't let me do that.

**alanzs** · 20th November 2008, 17:08

Originally Posted by Badjelly

Mrs Jelly doesn't let me do that.

I should have said "someone has the right..."

**Winston001** · 21st November 2008, 10:11

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Wikipedia is your friend....

The freedom of speech is not absolute. Legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[17] Exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[18] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[19]

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[19] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[19]

In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[20] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[20] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[19] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[19]

The above takes a bit of digesting but its as good a summary of the subject as any. PHD researchers and philosophers write reams and reams on the conflict between freedom of expression and the limits society imposes.

There is no simple answer - but the one counter-argument which gets overlooked time and time again is that for every freedom, there is a responsibility. That's if you want to continue to live in the community with a common set of rules and laws. Of course if you don't, fine, off to the desert for a life of free anarchy.....

Headbanger - There are billions of websites that cater for all tastes, Its more a situation where as you can frequent a place that suits rather then insisting everyone else change to suit you.

Even in little old NZ there is a multitude of motorcycle sites to choose from.

Spot on.

The internet may have unleashed a vast horde of poor spellers and stupid people but you can avoid them. KB is very tolerannt compared with other forums where abuse, swearing etc simply is not allowed.

However the colour and popularity of this site arises because of the freedom to pretty much post anything. Seems to work.