The issue I would like to discuss is the line between support for freedom of speech and the justification for putting social pressure on others who are offending people through their speech or written materials.
Legally, I support only limiting freedom of speech in cases of libel or slander. However, socially, I feel that it is appropriate to put peer pressure on individuals to encourage them to show some sensitivity and respect. Examples of times to exert peer pressure might be when overhearing a member of one ethnic group degrading others with the names of "nigger," "wetback," etc. Or, when someone is cussing out a stranger in front of the stranger's small children. Another example might be drowning out Fred Phelps and his friends when they are saying hateful words at an outdoor funeral.
Legally, people may be able to say or print what they want. When do each of you think it is appropriate to try to get people to stop saying what they are saying or get them to say it in a more respectful way through social influence? __________________________________________________
This question came from wondering whether non-religious people should just tolerate the sometimes offense religious propoganda, or actively, through social pressure, try to get those responsible for the offensive propoganda to stop or at least change their approach.
I am newly non-religious myself, but do not take offense at religious propoganda. That may be due to my generally slow-to-take-offense nature in the first place. However, I have been guilty, even on this board, of offending others by stating my opinions on religion too positively.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It'd depend on how well I know the individual in question. It takes quite a bit of effort to change that sort of thing, and I'm not at all likely to to spend that time or energy on a stranger. If it's clearly abusive I'd step in to help if it appeared necessary.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Juxtapose: Your response made me think that even if our speaking up in defense of whomever is being abused does not effect a change in the offender, it may do some good for the one being offended to know that he or she had some defenders out there.
Posted by Griffin (Member # 7166) on :
I can’t answer your question on social influence, but I can tell you a high school story that may help. Okay, I lied, I can answer your question but it would take too long. Here’s the story. Maybe you can learn something about social influence from the story.
Being the sly student I am; I enjoy messing with people without them knowing. I even subconsciously convinced one student (let’s call him Alpha) to do another student’s (Beta) homework. It happened during Study Hall one day. I (Griffin), Alpha and Beta were all sitting at a table with not much to do. Beta had Japanese homework which requires a 30 page packet of coping symbols. I don’t know how Beta’s hand can write for 30 pages, so I asked myself “Can I subconsciously convince Alpha to do Beta’s homework?” and “Will Beta go along with my social experiment not knowing what it is?” This is how it works. Griffin says with a smile “Hey Beta, let me copy some symbols”. Beta internally laughs and replies “No, the teacher will notice”. Griffin gives a look of disapproval “Common man, just one”. Beta “Okay one, and use a #2 pencil”. Griffin smiles and acts like he is enjoying the Japanese homework. Alpha asks in amazement “You’re actually going to do it?” Griffin replies “Yeah, this is awesome! I always wanted to do Japanese homework before I graduate”. The next day Griffin shows up late to Study Hall and finds Alpha already completed with 2 pages of Beta's packet!!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Cute Tom Sawyer story.
enochville- I agree with your assessment. Legally = bad, socially = good. I think it's entirely appropriate and that we do it constantly. When I'm around people that find cursing offensive, I try very hard to watch my language. Social skills teach us how to interact with others without causing offense. If a non-religious person is offended by something that a religious friend says, they should speak up or that person is going to keep repeating the offensive behavior, something that a friend would presumably not do intentionally.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is a non-question as far as I'm concerned because it describes something that happens to everyone, every day. Your always keeping things to yourself because society doesn't want to hear certain things from you. All the bad and malicious thoughts you have, you (usually) keep to yourself, if not for your sensitivity to others, then only to preserver your position in life.
This is also the reason people don't really trust those who are TOO honest IMO. The TOO honest person ignores social convention and shares things you don't want to hear or don't need to know, and it makes you question how good that person really is at all the other little "rules" in life. Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Orincoro: I think you missed my intent. I am not asking when it is appropriate to censor yourself. I am asking when is it appropriate to try to silence others or at least try to have others change their form of expression through social pressure even while being a supporter of free speech. Perhaps the answer is that it is justified when attempting to protect oneself or others from abuse. If that is the answer it is very subjective and likely to lead to misunderstandings.
One example might be putting social pressure on a Danish newspaper to not publish cartoons that are offensive to Muslims. No legal action can or should be taken. But, what is your rubric for determining when to try to exert social pressure to get another to change their speech? How much social pressure is acceptable?
I do agree with the rest of your post and feel that you made so good points.
Amanacer and Griffin: Thank you for your responses.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The point of free speech is NOT just to put up with things other people say for their sake. The point of free speech is to allow the expression of minority viewpoints for OUR sake. It is to make sure ideas have a chance to be heard and judged on their own merits, rather than suppressed by force.
If society uses social pressure to prevent someone from saying something, that can be just as harmful to free speech as legal pressure. If you are going to lose your job and friends if you speak out against the government, that is going to be just as effective at stopping dissent as legally punishing people for speaking out. Free speech is not much of a right if everyone will hate you if you exercise it. Hence, I don't think it is a good idea for us to use social force to prevent people from saying certain things. Otherwise you would be negating the point of free speech - people would be afraid to express minority viewpoints.
The way to respond to speech, I think, is not by punishing someone for their speech. Rather, I think it is by countering their speech with other speech or reasons why their speech is mistaken. If your friend says "black people are bad" then the best response is "I disagree" with reasons why, or possibly by having that person meet more black individuals and see that they are not bad. I don't think a good response is "I won't speak to you until you take that back", because it doesn't alter the opinion or convince them they are wrong - instead it just forces them to hide their true opinion. It is in OUR best interests to allow minority opinions to be expressed to us, even when that opinion is hateful or offends us.
However, a distinction should be made between punishing people for their speech and punishing someone for their behavior. It may be appropriate to stop someone from protesting at a funeral because, even though they should be allowed to express their opinion, the behavior of expressing political opinions at a funeral is inappropriate. It is like talking loudly in library - that's not a free speech restriction; it's a restriction on behavior. Abuse is another instance. It is okay to tell people things they don't want to hear, but it is possible to tell them in a non-abusive way. Abusiveness need not be tolerated, if it's the behavior we are punishing and not the message being stated. But the question to be asked in those question is "Is it the behavior we find wrong, or is it the idea being expressed?" It may be worth stopping the behavior if the behavior is wrong or rude, but if it is just the idea that you dislike then it is worth hearing.
The bottom line is this: We should not use FORCE, whether legal or social, to prevent the expression of an idea - because ideas are worth hearing. To stop an idea you should instead show why it is a bad idea.
[ April 19, 2006, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Tresopax: Thank you for your remarks. When I said "social pressure" or "social influence", I did not just mean "cutting off your friendship", or "hating someone", I also meant "countering their speech with other speech" and "not tolerating abusive language".
So, to me it seems you approve of some social pressure (using my liberal definition), but disapprove of others. And you only approve of using appropriate social pressure in certain situations where the speech is abusive or expressed in an inappropriate place. You call these behaviors. To me all speech is behavior and it is helpful to draw the lines of what types of "speech behavior" are inappropriate and why. You feel that messages that are not abusive should be permitted and heard.
Thank you, that is exactly what I wanted. I wanted your opinion of when social pressure is appropriate and what kinds of social pressure you approve of.
My next question for you is: how can you tell when speech is abusive or not?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Tresopax, I liked what you said. My favorite Mormon quote is from Hugh B. Brown (and I am paraphrasing from memory):
quote: We are not so concerned at whether your thoughts are orthodox or not, but rather that you have thoughts. The antidote for incorrect thinking is more thinking not less thinking.
I too feel this is moot. We censure ourselves and influence others all the time on what is appropriate. There seems to be two broad types of social influence you are talking about--suppression and counter education. Peer pressure is a suppression tool that is done automatically and is in it’s own category. The real question for me is when do we decide that we need to speak up despite peer pressure?
I think it is good to suppress speech when it is abusive (not uncomfortable or offensive). I think it is ok to counter educate anytime you feel a need or desire to participate in societies open forum. Peer pressure just happens.
I think the law has already defined when speech is abusive. You can't yell "fire" in a public building or use speech to put someone in harms way. You can't sexually abuse someone with speech or harass them. Does anyone know how the law defines verbal abuse?
EDIT to add link to Hugh B. Brown's comment--thanks to Amilia. EDIT to remove link out of repect. Maybe we can find a non-anti-Mormon site to link to.
[ April 20, 2006, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Griffin (Member # 7166) on :
lem, I spent 30min looking for the exact Hugh B. Brown quote or the verbal law and couldn't find them. Whoever finds the site please link it in your post.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Edit: Link removed upon request. Griffin, if you want to find it, it is from An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown.
Here's the exact quote:
quote:One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking. More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings.
We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts.
[ April 20, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Amilia ]
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
enochville, only libel and slander?
An right to free speech that only exlcuded libel and slander would clash with anti-harassment laws. Do you think an employer should be legally entitled to refer to his or her employees by racial slurs?
Should that preventing workplace harassment be company policy or law?
There was a case that went up to the California Supreme Court. I can't find it at the moment, but it involved the employees of a rent-a-car company suing for harassment. The company contested the charges by citing the First Amendment. The Court held that while a person is free to use racial epithets in a public forum, speech in the workplace must be held to a different standard. There's a lot more to it, but the main point is that a worker has the right to feel safe in his or her place of employment and cannot simply walk away as would be possible in a public place. If a worker has that legal right, then an employer has a legal duty to not infringe upon that right.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Calaeno: Great point! I completely agree with anti-harrassment laws. I just inadvertantly forgot them in my list.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
It should be noted that Amilia referenced an anti-Mormon site that referenced a book by Hugh B. Brown that I read when I was younger.
EDIT: Even tho the site is anti-Mormon, I like reading it. Of course I left the church. The site's ability to correctly quote Brown (my favorite 12 when I was a member--his son gave me my patriarchcal (sp?) blessing) is an example of what I was talking about in this thread about neutrality.
quote:Neutral was a poor word choice. It sounds like I am saying it is unbiased. Of course it is biased; it assumes the church is false. When I read sites like that, or Steve Benson, or the Origins of Mormonism (Grant Palmer), I am struck by how well they quote Mormon scripture, prophets, practices, and doctrine….
I meant to express in “neutral” the willingness to not only use “anti-Mormon” literature, but to also rely on Mormon text. Usually they rely heavily on Mormon text. There is a tactic for some adamant apologetics to not address the message but to attack the character of not-friendly-to-Mormonism discussions….
[ April 20, 2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I thinkn social pressure on speech is great. Whenever someone says something is gay in a derogatory fashion, I always respond with "what about the game/movie/clothing ect has homosexual tendencies?" If the person wears out that saying I try "What about the insert thing here is happy and cheerful?" It usually stops them and hopefully causes them to think.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't the Cards would appreciate having links to anti-Mormon sites on their forum.
Added: Yes, I realize all the levels and implications of posting that comment in this thread. Still - considering the wishes of those whose site it is, how about you take down the link to the antiMormon site?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I took out the link from my thread. The content was correct (in fact other pages on that site give a lot of respect to Brown).
I took my link down regardless if you whether or not you are associated with the Cards. However, I am confused about who here is part of the Card family? Every time I read your name, for some reason I thought you were OSC's wife--or is that kaCard? Are you the same?
Do you have a special relationship with them? How about Papajanitor? Who is he? I know RatNamedDog is OSC's son--any other relatives here?
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Sorry. I didn't realize that site was anti-Mormon. It was the first hit with the entire quote that I found through Google. Although some of the links you could follow from that page were rather odd, that page itself was directly quoting Brown with no additional commentary. I didn't think it would be a problem. The link has been removed.
Edit: And to tie this in to the thread topic, how's that for using social pressure to let someone know they were being unintentionally offensive? Most of the time, I think offense is not meant, and if you let a person know something bothers you, they will cease and desist. :-)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no association, either official or unofficial, with the Cards. I do know that they've objected to linking to certain sites in the past, and this seemed to fit.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)