France Shoot-Out

[a completely inoffensive name]

The laws should consider A) the position of the person/institution and B) the public attitude towards them, as well as any sensitivities around customs, tradition etc.

Thinking about this for a while, what you said initially made no sense. But maybe this is a difference between how Americans and Britons (I don't actually know the plural for UK citizens, Britons seems too specific to Great Britain) view government positions. The position and the person holding that position are completely different entities (from my view). That's why I have no problem with anyone openly mocking the President, because they are mocking the person, not the individual. Are you coming from an approach that the Queen (aka the monarchy) and the woman who is called The Queen are effectively the same? Then I could understand your point about customs and sensitivity.

We'll probably get bogged down if we start debating particular examples. I just think it is wishful thinking to say that free speech is totally positive and that censorship can never have positive effects. Advocating for total free speech because you believe it is right in principle, and advocating for it because you believe that it is the best way to counter extreme/anti-social beliefs are two different positions, yet they often get blurred. I think many people who believe at heart in the former can sometimes lazily go along with the perceived wisdom of the latter, perhaps because of the human tendency towards idealism. I believe in free speech in principle, but I also think that censorship can be pretty effective in practice.

I can't disagree that censorship can be effective. But I really do disagree with the notion that censorship is effective towards moderating opinions in the public sphere. Censorship and the restriction of free speech is perfectly applicable and effective when regarding things like national security, when the flow of information needs to be restricted. However, I don't think you can say the same regarding the flow of opinions. I just think that you are conflating the two and that the limits on free speech need to be varied for the various types of speech there are.

Historically speaking at least, a desire for some forms of restriction have been held by the overwhelming majority. I think this still holds true today - finding a balance between majority wishes and individual rights is what liberal democracy is all about.

Historically speaking (until the mid-1800s), a desire for slavery has been held by the overwhelming majority. No, I am not being glib, I don't think we can use public opinion and masquerade it with the authority of history to give it credence. A liberal democracy is about majority wishes except when individual rights are infringed. There is no "balance" one is subservient to the other.

I would hardly say that censoring extreme or offensive material has anything to do with asking people not to by human. They can think and feel what they like, while occasionally behind restricted in their outward actions - that is part and parcel of living in human society!

Humans like sex, humans like violence, humans like to insult those they disagree with. Trying to eliminate representations of these things in society seems to be asking people to pretend as if we are not human. I find it part and parcel of living in human society to hear the neighbors in the apt next to me having loud sex. That's what humans do.

That depends on whether or not it would have an overall positive effect. I don't view the right to vote as some sort of natural right, I just see it as a generally nice thing to have and something that allows for good governance. If there were circumstances when it would be detrimental to society, then away with it!

But that is clearly immoral. I didn't peg you for a utilitarian Rhy. You are so cavalier about rights which people to this day suffer because the lack the ability to exercise it. This argument is the justification of so much oppression. Can't give women the vote, we would start to have politicians elected based on hormones!

Let society come to an consensus about what is acceptable. If they cannot, they must reach an agreement as best they can, and obey the law that upholds it. I know that a lot of things that pass for acceptable today would never have been tolerated by many of your founding fathers. They were a diverse bunch and upheld arrangements that you would think are incredibly oppressive - eg a number of state-level established churches, and the censorship and discrimination that went along with that. Yet it was deemed constitutional at the time.

Yes, but we nowadays consider that an error on their part, not simply justification that human rights are frivolous things.