Author Topic: How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain  (Read 408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest7

  • Guest
Re: How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2021, 01:59:13 pm »
Have you ever heard of a US court ruling called 'Citizens United' ?

No.  I googled it, but its Wiki page is longer than the book I'm currently reading, so still no.



I'm saying that any medium needs to be considered differently from another.  Freedom of speech, freedom of expression is an abstract goal but never a standard.  We have all kinds of modifications and stipulations against lying, misleading information, yelling "fire" in a movie theatre crowded or not, political advertising and other advertising limits.

We can call it 'free speech' but that doesn't preclude there from being lots of things about it that are not actually 'free'.

If you think about that a little, you see that we are actually working as a collective to make sure that the principles we rely on are applied in a way we all agree with.  Every freedom eventually comes up against another freedom.

The idea of 'freedom of speech' is that if speech is free, it can be used to spread good ideas that the powerful may object to.  It can also be used to criticize those in power and keep them in check, and so on.   And yet I see people bring up "freedom of speech" as a defense of speech in many cases where the example begs closer examination.

So now, we are at a place where we are wondering why/how/when do we restrict speech ?  To answer that, we look at whether the collective is served by the so-called free speech.


I disagree that the medium matters.  Other than it's hard to shout fire in a crowded theatre over the radio, I don't see why someone's right to express themselves should change based on the medium.  Always with the understanding, of course, that the owner of the medium has the same rights, and can tell anyone they want to to go and jump in the lake.

I think you're over complicating the issue.  I don't think the idea of Freedom of Speech is what you describe here at all.  It's neither based on its use to spread good ideas nor does it matter whether anyone is served by it.

It's simply based on the principle that the government doesn't get to tell anyone what they can and cannot say, whether you, or I,  like it or not. 


Some speech is simply modified socially, and is 'free' from legal action but is addressed and dispersed of socially.  An example would be a madman raving on a corner.  There's no utility in the speech, but any harm that is done by it is outweighed by the costs or even the harm of dealing with it legally.


Sure, don't listen.  Or disagree.  There would only be any need to deal with it legally if he had broken the law.  Both utility and harm are immaterial.  And even if he does break the law, there would still be an argument here, because who says the law is just?



Back to Sam Harris.   I don't understand what the utility is of a podcaster, who is Jewish (Sorry whose mother is a non-religious Jew and who could thereby be described as an American cultural Jew) criticizing Islam, above other religions.  In fact, I think that his efforts are misdirected and could result in people turning him off rightly or wrongly.  And it makes me question why he even focuses on that topic.


I don't know Sam Harris from Adam, and I have no plans to get to know him any better, but I am sure that if what he is saying does not advocate violence against someone, I probably support his right to carry  on saying it.  Islam is certainly worthy of criticism above other religions.
 


I think that's subjective and even then is only one factor.


I suppose it's subjective in a way that all opinion is subjective.  Pretty hard to argue with the opinion in a lot of cases though. 

What other factors are there?