In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?
Wolfy48 — Wolfy48

I very strongly appreciate the importance of your question. Making something like eating your neighbor's children taboo may be preferable to laws. For those of us who value liberty, we may prefer taboos over laws because a taboo prevents undesirable actions better than laws.

An authority on this is Edward T Hall

Edward T. Hall's concept of "cultural taboos" refers to the unspoken rules, norms, and behaviors that are considered unacceptable or forbidden within a particular culture. These taboos often operate below the level of conscious awareness, shaping our interactions and understanding of social situations. Hall's work highlights how these taboos can create misunderstandings and challenges in intercultural communication. https://www.google.com/search?q=Edward+t+hall+taboos&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=edward+t+hall&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgkIARBFGDkYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBwgFEC4YgAQyBwgGEAAYgAQyDQgHEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQyBwgIEAAYgAQyBwgJEAAYgATSAQoxOTUwNmowajE1qAIIsAIB8QUEZpQ7pA-1Jg&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If a genie granted me a wish, I would wish everyone had a good understanding of taboos, why they are important and how they work.

Taboos are social prohibitions or avoidances, often with religious or cultural origins, that prevent individuals from engaging in certain actions or behaviors considered harmful or offensive. They function to maintain social order, protect individuals and groups, and reinforce group identity and cohesion.
Elaboration:
Social Control:
.
Taboos help regulate behavior by setting boundaries on acceptable actions and expressions.
Protection:
.
Taboos can protect individuals from dangerous or undesirable situations, either physical or emotional. For example, a taboo against eating certain foods could protect a community from food poisoning. more at https://www.google.com/search?q=the+function+of+a+taboo&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEEUYOxjCAzIJCAAQRRg7GMIDMgkIARBFGDsYwgMyCQgCEEUYOxjCAzIJCAMQRRg7GMIDMgkIBBBFGDsYwgMyCQgFEEUYOxjCAzIJCAYQRRg7GMIDMgkIBxBFGDsYwgPSAQkzMDk1ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBdBF3mbb-qQD&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

we also need a reminder of what good moral judgement has to do with liberty and justice. — Athena

Agree. Some basic agreement on some basic moral/ethical norms for the sake of everyone having a society, and everyone having a safe place for the next generation to learn how to be free and how to contribute to our society.

Your right, Lady Liberty is a great lesson, she gives off her own light. The statue itself was a gift, freely given, as a thank you for our contributions to freedom in the world. Lots of good lessons worth remembering and teaching.

Do you agree that means returning to education for good moral judgment and ending leaving moral training to the Chruch?

I keep harping on this because our present reality seems to prove the Bible right about the end of times. We are technologically smart but not wise. Bad decisions have gotten us here, and this is not the first time people have believed they were living through the end of time. We have some choices: ignorance and immorality, or education and using reason to make moral decisions.

Bottom line, I think we need to talk about morality and why education is essential to our liberty. I have been harping about this for many years. Forums may stress our rights, but our rights require a sense of responsibility, and young people do not seem to want responsibility, only rights. We need to grow up and hopefully grow in wisdom.

This post has gone in some different directions, so I would just like to state my opinion on a matter.
I believe that the government should not be able to hinder our freedom of speech or expression.
This is not to say that people should be able to do anything they want, but there should not be a systematic response from the government.
Instead I think that societal pressure could be of help. Especially because societal pressure can be overcome.
In this way a person who screams something inappropriate such as the aforementioned "Heil Hitler" is put down by society. On the other hand a person who supports 'Black Lives Matter' or 'Transgender Rights', while facing opposition has a chance of overcoming it.
The point is not to be perfect from the beginning, but to have the potential for both freedom and control of some of the chaos.
Of course this system is bound to face corruption. However, I believe that the systems with the most room for corruption have the most potential for good. This is because it is not based on imperfect law which always seems to have some loophole, but our society and human morals which has the potential to handle all problems.

"In this way a person who screams something inappropriate such as the aforementioned "Heil Hitler" is put down by society. On the other hand a person who supports 'Black Lives Matter' or 'Transgender Rights', while facing opposition has a chance of overcoming it." --

I fully agree with this! I think that the government being able to limit freedom of speech is a very quick road to oppression. Society should be the voice of reason, pushing down on unpopular opinions. There are issues, such as if the majority is racist, than racial justice groups get put down, but that can change with time. Morals and standards are constantly shifting with time period and geography, and what is ok today might not be tomorrow, and what is illegal today might one day be common sense. So yes, I agree that society should decide what people can and can't say, not the government.

@Wolfy48
Free speech, as conceived by the writers of the law, is never absolute. Nothing is absolute in any given society. Your conception of free speech is naive and disruptive.
A good discussion of an ethics topic is one that wants the greater good to surface. Among the competing opinions, the goal is to come up with what is the moral obligation given the freedom to speak our minds.

I am glad that there is a law prohibiting sexism, racism, and bullying at work. I'm glad because I don't have the desire -- through my own conscience, through education at home and at school, and through my interaction with other people -- to make people feel inferior, feel threatened by my presence, or to make a place a toxic one. And I certainly do not wish others to spout toxic nonsense in the workplace.

Everyone is free to do as they please within the limits of their capabilities.

The rest is just posturing.

Assuming you want a response that is a little less cutting than above I can tone it down to simply state that freedoms come with a weight of responsibility. If people abuse the hard earned freedoms they have they risk making said freedoms harder to defend in the long-term -- possibly short-term -- future.

If someone has strong opinions I oppose I would rather they speak up than go underground. If they get imprisoned for saying what they say, acting out their speech in certain ways or manners, then the freedom they had to state what they stated and act as they did comes with a price (as it always will to some degree).

Justice in the world is only apparent in how injustice is distributed. We praise and point out those who fall to he sword of injustices if we agree with them.

And I believe that a society that strives for constant liberation from anything restrictive and oppressive is liberated to the point of freedom from being

And I believe that a society that strives for constant liberation from anything restrictive and oppressive is liberated to the point of freedom from being — Astorre

Acknowledging that we have a moral obligation -- which in itself is restriction, but not oppressive -- is what a moral agent is.

"I am glad that there is a law prohibiting sexism, racism, and bullying at work." --

I am not. I am against all those things, but it is SOCIETY'S job to prevent them, not the government. Racism at work should get someone fired, not arrested or fined. The government telling people what they can and can't say is a very slippery slope. What is considered racism? If I say "All races are equal" Is that fine? If I say "Black people shouldn't get extra help from society" Is that racist? If what you say is so wrong that people are very offended, then the company can fire you. But the government? The government should not be able to punish people for having an opinion/

I'm not sure what nation has laws making employment discrimination a criminal offense. Please let me know which does. Nor do I know of any jurisdiction in the U.S. that provides it's employment discrimination to hold an opinion. Making employment decisions because someone belongs.to a particular race or sex is different from merely holding an opinion, though.

And I believe that a society that strives for constant liberation from anything restrictive and oppressive is liberated to the point of freedom from being — Astorre

D.C. Schindler makes this point in his cleverly labeled Freedom From Reality: The Diabolical Nature of Modern Liberty. The second part of the title is clever too because he means "diabolical" in the original Greek context as the opposite of symbolical, a slip towards sheer multiplicity and potency.



I think that's right, but I'd go a bit further and say that the very idea that core components of becoming fully actualized as a human being, such as being a good mother, a good citizen, a good priest, a good soldier, a good teacher, a good friend, neighbor, etc. are "restrictions" is presupposing a defective notion of liberty. Freedom has to be a freedom towards a truly good end or else it ultimately turns out to be arbitrariness, which is the opposite of freedom.

As Hegel demonstrates in the Philosophy of Right, freedom as sheer lack of constraint, taken to its limit, reveals itself to be contradictory. No choice is possible without lapsing into determinacy, which is itself seen as a lack of freedom. So, choice itself contradictorily becomes a negation of freedom.

"I'm not sure what nation has laws making employment discrimination a criminal offense. Please let me know which does" --

I couldn't say off the top of my head either, I was just stating that if there was, I wouldn't stand for it

certain types of speech should be restricted, or if some opinions are bad enough that you can justify giving up free speech to silence them. — Wolfy48

I think the crucial point regarding all freedoms (of speech, religion, etc.) is that these freedoms were not instated out of some profound regard for humanity, or out of some profound conviction that all people and all religions etc. matter and are valid.

But rather, out of entirely pragmatic reasons: to get people to stop fighting for supremacy, because those fights caused a lot of collateral damage, civil unrest, and damage to business. If, at least legally, they're all equal, then they have no justification to fight for supremacy.

The greater good to be obtained from those freedoms isn't some humanist ideal, or solidarity, a sense of fraternity, but just plain absence of certain types of strife that are socially and economically disruptive.

And when looked at that way, it makes sense not to try to make much of the freedom of speech at all.

If what you say is so wrong that people are very offended, then the company can fire you. — Wolfy48

Yes, that is actually the consequence. I don't think anyone has been jailed for offensive gestures and language. Unless it is an assault or murder.

I think you misunderstood the role of society and government. Government does sanction societal rules, forming it into a law. Enforcement is the key. A society may frown upon racism and sexism, but without punishment, such as lawful job firing, then no meaningful enforcement is in place.