The right to not be exposed to ideas I don’t like or agree with?

by EdenOne 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  EdenOne

  Ok, I would like to submit to the forum the following question: In abstract, do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?

  Please think it through and its implications on both ends of the spectrum.

  It’s not the right to conscientious objection to DO something you vehemently disagree with; it’s not about the liberty to chose which ideas you want to embrace or advocate. It’s something different.

  Given that, as exJWs, we understand the importance of being exposed to different opinions in order to form our own opinion, should someone claim the right not to be exposed to opinions or ideas that they don’t like?

  Please weight in
• 

  truth_b_known

  "Right" is a strong word. It is an overused word. Rights come from God or Nature. Rights do not come from government.

  I believe in the right to free speech. I do not be in a right to be heard. Say what you will, but I have a choice to whether I listen or not.

  Freedom is required to have happiness.
• 

  EdenOne

  Rights come from God or Nature.

  The right to a retirement pension comes from God or from Nature? 🙄

  please, no “whataboutism” ....

  I actually mean a LEGAL right
• 

  waton

  it depends how the idea is delivered. I should have the right to silence instead of unwanted noise.

  written ideas are fine.
• 

  NotNew

  Yes... You exercise your "right" not to be exposed to anything that may offend you...BY not reading, looking at or listening to ANYTHING...PERIOD.

  There you go... now your as safe as you can be.
• 

  minimus

  Right? No . Desire, possibly.Your question is so broad? Where are you going with this??
• 

  FedUpJW

  I actually mean a LEGAL right

  That implies that government gives/permits/or enforces that particular right.

  A LEGAL 'right' to not be exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with would give rise to censorship of ideas that any particular group of people deemed they did not like at the time. It would be a 'right' that would have no meaning as it could be changed with whatever politically correct/woke goofiness was popular at the time.

  So no, I do not think people should have the LEGAL 'right' not to be exposed to ideas they do not like or agree with. They do have the inherent personal right though to make their own choice if they wish to continue to listen or not.
  
• 

  Phizzy

  I firmly believe that for people to have the Legal Right to resist being exposed to opinions etc they disagree with is to be resisted as firmly as we can !

  If people live in an "Echo Chamber" that simply confirms their view, how do they know their opinions and beliefs are correct ?

  I find it a pain in the bum when I am confronted by ideas and opinions I know to be wrong, but why should I not know the shit people are coming out with ? I find it a pain because I usually feel Duty Bound to put such people right.

  if my own opinions are correct and can be backed up with facts and evidence, why should I be worried by being confronted with nonsense ?

  I am so glad that many opinions I held, many things I thought were true, were shown to be not so by people who knew better. If I had listened to the JW Org rules, I would still be in that Echo Chamber, the J W Mental Prison.

  No, as long as it isn't Hate Speech, likely to foment violence, expose me to it as much as you like !
• 

  EdenOne

  Let me add something to give a background to my question. There's a case on the news here in Portugal about two school boys, model, grade A students, age 12 and 15. A couple of years ago the Ministry of Education introduced a new mandatory discipline in the curriculum called "Citizenship and Development". Among other things, it discusses ethics, political process, sexuality, gender equality, non-discrimination of minorities, civil rights, etc. Now, for many super-conservative parents, this is sheer horror: What? Promoting gay rights? Identity politics? discussing abortion?? and the list of complaints goes on. Normally these are the same people that whine about "Moral & Religion" (catholic version) discipline being merely optional at school. But I digress. The father of those two children forbade his sons from attending these classes, citing conscientious objection. He says that his children should not be exposed to such ideas and that sort of education should be given at home by the parents. His two kids missed too many classes and hence as per the Board of Education they failed the school year despite being A-grade students in everything else. That is the background to my question. But the answer to that question has interesting ramifications to Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  truth_b_known

  do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?

  Short answer: No.

  Example: A person who owns a piece of property along a busy highway erects a giant billboard that contains a message a particular group finds offensive.

  Question: Does the group who takes offense to the billboard have a right not to be exposed to it and its message?

  Answer: No. The owner of the billboard owns the property. The owner can do with it as he wishes.
  

  Question: Does the group have the right to put up their own billboard next to the property owner's whether or not he agrees with it?

  Answer: Only if the owner gives permission.

  Question: What if the opposition group claims the property owner's billboard is "Hate Speech"?

  Answer: Hate Speech is subjective to personal or group think. Censorship is censorship.