The thing that often gets on my nerves about free speech is people mistaking in for freedom to be ignorant and offensive. Because of this I actually lean a bit more towards it technically being a privilege in my mind, since some people have proven themselves not to deserve it.

Freedom of speech is a right every human being should have. How bad would it be if you can't share your opinions or what you want to say?

Quote from HashBrownTrials

Freedom of speech is a right every human being should have. How bad would it be if you can't share your opinions or what you want to say?

Depends on the validity of your opinions and what exactly you want to say. It is undeniable that there are some people who's ideas make the world a worse place.

Quote from Root

Depends on the validity of your opinions and what exactly you want to say. It is undeniable that there are some people who's ideas make the world a worse place.

And it's up to others' freedom of speech to take those ideas down.
Imagine if someone who had one of those bad ideas came into power and no one could speak against him because there was no freedom of speech

I am in no way saying that I am against freedom of speech- but I am against total and uncontrolled freedom, something that can have negative effects in any area. I am more for free speech as a freedom that you are born with, but don't necessarily get to keep depending on your behavior. At the point at which you are having a significant negative impact on society due to your freedom, censorship of different levels of severity might help to fix things. Of course, this create easy corruption in many governments, but I'm talking about a perfect world here.

Quote from Root

I am in no way saying that I am against freedom of speech- but I am against total and uncontrolled freedom, something that can have negative effects in any area. I am more for free speech as a freedom that you are born with, but don't necessarily get to keep depending on your behavior. At the point at which you are having a significant negative impact on society due to your freedom, censorship of different levels of severity might help to fix things. Of course, this create easy corruption in many governments, but I'm talking about a perfect world here.

Just so you know, in the Debate Thread, we debate about the real world (unless specified) and not randomly made up perfect worlds.

Yes, Freedom of Speech can sometimes be offensive and gives people the license to say stupid things. But so what? It gives us the license to refute them too.

By your logic, the earliest gay pioneers would not have been given the right to start their movement because society at that time thought what they were saying was immoral and blasphemous. The civil rights movement would have been curbed and destroyed if people subscribed to your selective-freedom-of-speech theory. The earliest scientists wouldn't have been allowed to publish their findings because religious rules forbade it.

The only speech that can be opposed is the spreading of physically dangerous knowledge, like how to make a bomb, or bombarding children with stimulus they aren't mentally equipped to handle.

I'm sure there's still plenty of people claiming that mentioning homosexuality to children is 'bombarding children with stimulus they aren't mentally equipped to handle'. They're wrong, but it shows a point that you need some way to decide.

Edit: You seem to think in giving a minor criticism I was attempting to refute everything you said.

Quote from Skeletonxf

I'm sure there's still plenty of people claiming that mentioning homosexuality to children is 'bombarding children with stimulus they aren't mentally equipped to handle'. They're wrong, but it shows a point that you need some way to decide.

Incorrect analogy. Children can always be exposed to new ideas. But visual boundaries can easily be drawn without a significant grey area. Do you want children exposed to homosexual nudity? No. Do you want children to be exposed to heterosexual nudity? No. Also freedom of speech, as a subject, fails to be a point of debate if applied to children, seeing how they aren't fully developed citizens yet.

My point is freedom of speech applies universally to adults, but not to children, or when aimed at children. It is a right that belongs to every voting citizen. And children are not voting citizens. Just as they can't vote, they can't be exposed to everything either because they are not mentally equipped to handle it.

But as far as Freedom of speech goes, it must apply to all adults. Even the gay bashers. You are using one simplified, and ultimately untrue, analogy to ignore all the other points I made.

Quote from Nish

Do you want children exposed to homosexual nudity? No. Do you want children to be exposed to heterosexual nudity? No.

You'll have to forgive my devil's advocacy here.

But why not exactly?

Quote from Jutsu

You'll have to forgive my devil's advocacy here.

But why not exactly?

Of course I will forgive you, my dear D.A.

NOTE: I have no problem with solo nudity. I just don't want children to be forced to watch someone fucking. Straight or gay.

a) Sex is a very complex, complicated thing. Just like politics or violence or economics. Even many adults haven't come to grip with sex yet. I do not wish to suck the wonder and awe out of a child's mind.

b) Children are physically not ready to have sex. They emulate everything they see adults do on a smaller scale. Pre-pubescent experimentation with sex frequently leads to sexual hangs up and quirks when they become adults.

c) In 3rd world countries, pedophilia and child sex rings are often masked under sexual education to children. I think it is entirely possible to teach a child about abuse and bad touching without exposing them to sexual videos or images. In fact, I would say that exposing susceptible children to sexuality could blur sexual boundaries and they could be preyed upon.

These three points are what I can condense it down to. I personally feel that children are far too valuable and far too important for them to be raised in this new age "Lets kids do what they want" bullshit.

Quote from Nish

Of course I will forgive you, my dear D.A.

NOTE: I have no problem with solo nudity. I just don't want children to be forced to watch someone fucking. Straight or gay.

a) Sex is a very complex, complicated thing. Just like politics or violence or economics. Even many adults haven't come to grip with sex yet. I do not wish to suck the wonder and awe out of a child's mind.

b) Children are physically not ready to have sex. They emulate everything they see adults do on a smaller scale. Pre-pubescent experimentation with sex frequently leads to sexual hangs up and quirks when they become adults.

c) In 3rd world countries, pedophilia and child sex rings are often masked under sexual education to children. I think it is entirely possible to teach a child about abuse and bad touching without exposing them to sexual videos or images. In fact, I would say that exposing susceptible children to sexuality could blur sexual boundaries and they could be preyed upon.

These three points are what I can condense it down to. I personally feel that children are far too valuable and far too important for them to be raised in this new age "Lets kids do what they want" bullshit.

You make fair points.

a) I live in a culture with media saturated by violence and while it does desensitize children I'm not sure if there's any unbiased studies that show large negative consequences of this. I argue that if violence be so commonly observed by the youth, why can't sex? If anything I see the taboo and social constructs surrounding sexuality as a hindrance on a childs capacity to comprehend sexuality once they're adults.
It could be somewhat equated to how in the USA people cannot legally imbibe until they are of 21 years of age or older. It's common practice for people who turn 21 to go gang busters and get alcohol poisoning the night they turn 21. Practically tradition. But because they weren't exposed to it in a positive light at a younger age without all the taboos, frankly they can't handle their liquor, they don't really know their limits. However people like me who were exposed to the good and the bad of alcohol at a young age, and had a fair share of limit testing experiences with people who were experienced, now that I'm older than the legal drinking age I almost never over do it, I guess you could say I drink responsibly.
Likewise I was also exposed to violence and sex at a much younger age than most people, I read my first porno magazine and watched my first porno when I was 10. It was hard to understand at the time, but because of those experiences, well, I'm experienced. As I got older my understanding of it and having access to a wealth of knowledge on the subject *the internet* helped spare me of any awkward sexual encounters when I finally got to it. On top of that, I feel like the modern man is bombarded with so much sexual stimulation on a daily basis, it's actually valuable to be somewhat desensitized to it.

b) I agree children aren't physically ready to have sex, but at the same time children don't necessarily need to see it to emulate it, my first sexual encounter was when I was seven when I kissed a girl and we tried to bump naughty parts, on some sort of instinctual level we knew what we were doing, we were just incapable of acting it out. For a frame of reference, I was wearing toy story undies, literally. I had never seen sex before, but we were curious and left alone together. That's an example of an early sexual encounter that had no damaging side effects.

c) I can't say much about 3rd world countries, I've never been to one, and I don't have any citation prepared. But I seem to remember the USA being in the top 5 most pedophiles list. A massive amount of children are molested here, I was no exception. Did my exposure to sexual content blur my boundaries? Ehn, not really. As a child I had no sexual boundaries, I didn't have a developed sexuality. I either wanted to be touched or didn't want to be touched, I didn't understand that there were differences or prejudices. However, the people whom "Victimized" me, they knew full well what they were doing and likely would've done it regardless.
But unlike most people in the USA I don't look back at it with a psychologically damaged victim complex, the truth is my parents left me alone a lot with people who were strangers to them and as a child I wasn't able to make a definitive consent and even if I didn't it probably would've happened anyways. I know this is tangential, but my point is that pedophilia is going to happen regardless of whether or not we expose our children to sexual content. If anything it could be used positively and responsibly to show them and explain to them what being sexually assaulted actually is.

But then again, I don't exactly have a static stance on this, I'm just asking to see the coin from the other side. Through my experiences.
Sorry for the wall of text, I didn't mean to externus you.

Quote from Jutsu

a) I live in a culture with media saturated by violence and while it does desensitize children I'm not sure if there's any unbiased studies that show large negative consequences of this. I argue that if violence be so commonly observed by the youth, why can't sex? If anything I see the taboo and social constructs surrounding sexuality as a hindrance on a childs capacity to comprehend sexuality once they're adults.

Violence exists on macro and micro levels. Punching someone in the face is violence. Stabbing them in the eye and causing permanent damage is also violence. Sexuality in a pre-pubescent relationship unfortunately does not have no many levels. Violence that children are exposed to can be split into:

1) Cartoon, road runner type violence that can't be emulated.
2) Violence in movies or music videos (NOT aimed for children) that children are not physically strong enough to perpetrate on each other.
3) Violence in the news that is often shown for sensationalism. The consequences are great heightened in these pieces.

Sex on the other hand is an entirely different matter. Children ARE exposed to ideas of romance and love, and even the whole concept of parents making babies. This does equip them for when their minds become more geared towards learning about sex. What I am saying is that images and videos of sex itself is completely unnecessary for this. The violence that the media exposes us to is real violence. Is the sex that they expose us to, real sex?

Lets talk about porn. When was the last time the sex in porn was anything like sex in real life? Thats the issue. There is no control. A child can grow up believing that sex is something only for him/her to discover that it is vastly different from what was on screen which can lead to severe hang ups and sexual quirks.

Quote from Jutsu

It could be somewhat equated to how in the USA people cannot legally imbibe until they are of 21 years of age or older. It's common practice for people who turn 21 to go gang busters and get alcohol poisoning the night they turn 21. Practically tradition. But because they weren't exposed to it in a positive light at a younger age without all the taboos, frankly they can't handle their liquor, they don't really know their limits. However people like me who were exposed to the good and the bad of alcohol at a young age, and had a fair share of limit testing experiences with people who were experienced, now that I'm older than the legal drinking age I almost never over do it, I guess you could say I drink responsibly.

Which is why it is important for parents to talk to children about sex and explain what it is on a basic level. My point was never that children should remain ignorant of a concept of sex. It was exposing them to images of sexual intercourse or cunnilingus or analingus or whatever it is. Sex can't be compared to alcohol. You're a boy. Imagine a girl. Surely, no one thinks a damaged hymen during pre-pubescent experimentation to 'learn the limits' is the same as a hangover the next morning?

Quote from Jutsu

Likewise I was also exposed to violence and sex at a much younger age than most people, I read my first porno magazine and watched my first porno when I was 10. It was hard to understand at the time, but because of those experiences, well, I'm experienced. As I got older my understanding of it and having access to a wealth of knowledge on the subject *the internet* helped spare me of any awkward sexual encounters when I finally got to it. On top of that, I feel like the modern man is bombarded with so much sexual stimulation on a daily basis, it's actually valuable to be somewhat desensitized to it.

Exactly. And this is all while it is still ILLEGAL to show sexual stuff to minors. Imagine if it became legal (which is what this debate is actually about, freedom of speech), the kind of stuff that children would be exposed to. In a world where you can't show kids porn, a ten year old Jutsu managed to get his hands on a magazine. What sort of ultra-fetishized, twisted scatological bestiality do you think will makes its way into the hands of young children if it was acceptable to show them sex?

Quote from Jutsu

b) I agree children aren't physically ready to have sex, but at the same time children don't necessarily need to see it to emulate it, my first sexual encounter was when I was seven when I kissed a girl and we tried to bump naughty parts, on some sort of instinctual level we knew what we were doing, we were just incapable of acting it out. For a frame of reference, I was wearing toy story undies, literally. I had never seen sex before, but we were curious and left alone together. That's an example of an early sexual encounter that had no damaging side effects.

No damaging side effects this time. Thats because, in your own words, you were operating on an instinctual level. Now image that it was perfectly normal for kids of your age to watch porn. At seven. It wouldn't be instinctual anymore, would it? You would see what adults do and try to emulate it. If you can't put it in deep enough inside her, someone will come up with the bright idea of putting something external in there because they see it in porn. Ever seen the long lasting effects on a young girl's vagina if someone tries to stimulate penetration in it? I've seen a abuse-awareness video about it and it wasn't pretty at all. Fistula ain't fun, ladies.

I fear that you think my point is children should lead completely non-experimental, chaste lives. Not at all. What I'm saying is let kids be kids. They'll have their own silly fumbles and gropes and kisses. But don't arm them with sexual knowledge of what adults do to each other, because some of them will emulate it.

Quote from Jutsu

c) I can't say much about 3rd world countries, I've never been to one, and I don't have any citation prepared. But I seem to remember the USA being in the top 5 most pedophiles list. A massive amount of children are molested here, I was no exception. Did my exposure to sexual content blur my boundaries? Ehn, not really. As a child I had no sexual boundaries, I didn't have a developed sexuality. I either wanted to be touched or didn't want to be touched, I didn't understand that there were differences or prejudices. However, the people whom "Victimized" me, they knew full well what they were doing and likely would've done it regardless.
But unlike most people in the USA I don't look back at it with a psychologically damaged victim complex, the truth is my parents left me alone a lot with people who were strangers to them and as a child I wasn't able to make a definitive consent and even if I didn't it probably would've happened anyways. I know this is tangential, but my point is that pedophilia is going to happen regardless of whether or not we expose our children to sexual content. If anything it could be used positively and responsibly to show them and explain to them what being sexually assaulted actually is.

I don't understand, bro. Are you saying that just because you didn't feel victimized by it, that no one else who undergoes the same experience should? Are you saying that just because pedophilia will happen, we must make it easier for them by allowing them to blur the lines of acceptability for sexuality among children? Surely not.

I don't know the extent of your abuse, so I won't make any assumptions about it. But there are children who are physically scarred and hurt by it. They do become victims whether they see themselves as that or not. I disagree that sexual imagery can be used to explain sexual assault to children. Yes, it might help. But we know for a fact that is IS possible to educate children on sexual abuse without exposing them to pornography or videos of sexual acts. On the other hand, for a 50-50 chance of whether it would help or not, it makes no sense to take away the innocence of a child and ask them to process something as complex as sexuality when they are still attempting to grasp simpler things in life.

I think we're steering away from the topic..

In all reality, exposing all this to children is bad. If you show a kid any sort of nudity or whatever it may be, it can brainwash them into thinking that it's not bad. They're not ready for those type of things and won't understand it, they wouldn't be in the right mindset.

Quote from HashBrownTrials

I think we're steering away from the topic..

Why? A part of Freedom of Speech is the right to do ANYTHING in front of ANYONE, especially if it is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. So debating whether or not people have the right to show pornography to children is a very pertinent question and on-topic. Its far more off-topic to tell people that they're "steering away from the topic" without realizing that is the nuances of the main topic that are being dissected.

Quote from HashBrownTrials

In all reality, exposing all this to children is bad. If you show a kid any sort of nudity or whatever it may be, it can brainwash them into thinking that it's not bad. They're not ready for those type of things and won't understand it, they wouldn't be in the right mindset.

Playing Devil's Advocate, why do you think nudity is a bad thing?
I doubt children of naturalists are scarred for life, I'd say the attitude of covering up your body can actually be more harmful by disconnecting people from their own body.