Discussion of Free of Speech (Risty, Namira, Alex, Juna)

Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:26 am

DISCUSSION OF FREE OF SPEECH

Agenda: Discussion of Free of Speech

Who’s attending: Alex, Juna, Namira, Risty

Facilitator: Juna

Secretary: Risty

Notes:

What is freedom of speech?

- From what juna says, freedom of speech could be anything, a freedom not limited towards speeches, but also about actions. A freedom to do anything, whether it is negative or positive. Freedom of speech towards the assault in Campus, freedom of speech in thousands of universities

- To Risty, freedom of speech is a right to speak and speak our minds, but there should be right and rules regarding the idea of freedom of speeches. People tend to abuse the power and overuse it for negative thing. I personally do not agree with that, because the idea behind making “freedom of speech” are for positive reasons, to give rights and freedoms towards different people, without being limited or being pressured to keep everything to yourself and to not stick out for yourself. For that reason, freedom of speech should have extended rules regarding the negative and positive things about it

- Alex sees freedom of speech runs a thin line on morality, I think some people could abuse the wrongful power of freedom of speech, to incite arguments or riots towards a group of people

- Namira agrees with alex, because freedom of speech could be overused, and that there is no such thing, as an actual “freedom” to talk. Cause regardless, there should be a limit when people would like to talk about something/someone else.

- Juna added, that it is true there is NO such things as true freedom when inciting speeches or actions, because at the end of there are always consequences. Whether it from a law, like freedom of speech, there are still consequences out of it, so freedom of speech shouldn't be a reason to start hate crime.

Should you be free to tell an enemy your country’s national secrets?

- Namira said, being able to have freedom when talking, but when it comes to giving secrets of your countries secret towards an enemy, the person responsible should be responsible when the consequences come

- Alex added, when it comes to spilling secrets of your own country to an enemy, I believe that the person should have the right mind to decide whether or not the secret is still moral, such as implementing concentration camp, we are free to tell the enemy, because it could benefit so many people

- Namira agrees with Alex because, regardless we should still have our own humanity and spill inhuman secrets about the country, if it is able to help and be more moral.

- Juna stated, that it could be tricky when spilling a secret to an enemy country. Because, no matter what we say, if a person were to spill a secret, the person responsible would be an enemy of their own country.

- Risty sees spilling secrets of your own country to an enemy as a risky move. As we all know, we should turn on our humanity switch when wanting to tell a secret to an enemy, because at the end of the day, if we were to do that, in a harsh way, it would be the same as treason towards your own country. But, doing what’s right is the most important thing out of it all

Some countries forbid school teachers from introducing subjects like CENSORED in their classes. Is this denying free speech?

- To Risty, she believes that countries aren’t wrong, but they aren’t right either when forbidding school teacher from introducing subjects like censored things. Because, at the end of the day, a countries main goal, is to make sure its citizens have the right mind and thought. However, it could be wrong too, because when we think about it, who know their students more, their teacher or the country? Teachers should be able to decide whether or not, the student is able to face the issue or censored topic or not.

- Juna is for what risty says, because he believes that, the school boards, specifically the teachers should be able to decide whether or not the student is able to cope with the topic or not, and not the countries decision to choose that.

- To Alex, he thinks that it's somewhat understandable that some country wants to censor somethings in their schools, because they would like to protect their own citizens. But, some countries, could defy this, and manipulate their citizens into thinking the wrong thing, either twisting history, or lying.

- Namira added, this is denying freedom of speech, however, it is morally correct to censor some things in class. Cause children has a developing mind that isn’t whole yet, so what the country/school board is doing, is that they are trying to “save” the students mind.

Plato thought that the masses aren’t responsible enough to handle free speech, only the either philosopher can be trusted with free speech. Is Plato right?

- Risty thinks, that Plato isn’t wrong when saying that because, people with the right mind, and could critically think about it, while still thinking about the consequences are responsible enough with freedom of speech. But I don't agree with what Plato says, when other people beside philosophers won’t be given any freedom of speech

- Alex agrees that the masses of the people aren’t responsible enough and isn’t ready for the truth and especially towards freedom of speech. But, he doesn't agree that only philosophers should be trusted with freedom of speech, because the masses should be given the same “treatment” because it may add and help problems and “disgusting” truths.

- Juna agrees to what both Alex and Risty says, because everyone should be given the free of speech, not limited to just philosopher’s. However, he agrees that philosophers are the only ones who are ready to take in the “truth”.

- Namira also agrees with alex, people have the right to freedom of speech, however, they should be able to take responsibility from it.