• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Freedom of Speech

MechaMoth

Eloquent Speaker
532
Posts
6
Years
I'm definitely a fan of freedom of speech, but it's always frustrating when a celebrity or a person does something that gets themselves fired (Tim Allen, recently...sort of) and fans claim that freedom of speech is being hampered.

Freedom of speech does not affect you from saying really s****y things and your company firing you for it. Or when someone wears blackface and the company fires them. FoS mostly covers you for speaking against the government. Your company/place of employment/school has other rules that could/do hamper Freedom of Speech.

Ideally, I think the rule should be: don't be an a**.
 

Vragon

Guest
0
Posts
I'm definitely a fan of freedom of speech, but it's always frustrating when a celebrity or a person does something that gets themselves fired (Tim Allen, recently...sort of) and fans claim that freedom of speech is being hampered.

Freedom of speech does not affect you from saying really s****y things and your company firing you for it. Or when someone wears blackface and the company fires them. FoS mostly covers you for speaking against the government. Your company/place of employment/school has other rules that could/do hamper Freedom of Speech.

Ideally, I think the rule should be: don't be an a**.

Well yes they are invalid in saying freedom of speech is being hampered in those scenarios, but not because of the freedom of speech, but rather the mutual contract and public figurine. Companies that hire people, expect to not have their names dragged in the mud due to this person being a a** as you put it. It's in their best interest to decided whether a person is worth keeping or not no matter how loud mouth they are. This isn't infringement (I believe that's the word) on freedom of speech since it's a mutual contract that was signed. A contract that more than likely has the employer able to fire or lay off the employee should said person prove to be unsatisfactory.

The fans are just mad because there fans of said person and are not thinking about the whole "Justice is Blind" bit.
 

Adore

Party.
310
Posts
11
Years
Not sure how it is everywhere else, but legally these are the established limits on free speech in the US:

  • Threats to national security
  • Defamation against a private individual
  • Legitimate threats
  • Broadcasting limitations (from an era where TV and radio were limited)
  • Privileged communication (ex. doctor-patient, lawyer-client, spousal)
  • Trade secrets
  • Copyright
  • Fraud
  • Money (thanks Citizens United! /s)
  • Drowning out other speech (the supreme court case that established this meant literally, with a sports stadium sound system or things of that volume)
  • Stolen valor
  • No audience can be held captive
  • Obscenity (related to broadcasting limits)
  • Any form of speech that involves the endangerment of someone's safety to take place.
  • And the weirdest one: fighting words. Meaning there are some insults that people will definitely beat the crap out of you for using, and they are within their rights to do so. (Although I should note that this has NEVER, EVER been used in any SCOTUS case since it was established because they think it was a stupid case.)

And a few others I'm probably forgetting. Everything else is fair game. But as-is, that seems like a fair and reasonable list.

I also believe that hate speech shouldn't be protected (a policy like Germany has that jails nazis would be great) because it often leads to legitimate threats and threats to national security. But the SCOTUS has generally ruled that the issue is with the conduct of the speaker(s) and that the speech itself is "too political" for them to preside over.

But regardless of legality, people definitely need to be held accountable for hate speech at least socially, if not legally. So, if you get caught using racial/homophobic/transphobic slurs or something then you absolutely deserve to be fired from your job, kicked out of a store, etc. Because you obviously cannot treat people with basic decency.
 

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
The problem with firing people from their job for hate speech is that they see it as a form of discrimination against them. Hence why we have those stupid "religious freedom" arguments when people want to say how much they hate gay people and not be judged/hated for it. We should still fire them but it really doesn't do anything to deter them from being total twats.
 

HIMDogson

Rationally Royalist
15
Posts
6
Years
I generally support the European model on free speech; hate speech should be banned as I consider it de facto incitement to violence. The main issue a I have with the way in which Europe handles hate speech is that there doesn't seem to be a coherent definition of the term; I'm okay with, say, Norway's definition of it, but not with Canada's definition of it. Now, obviously with any definition there will be ambiguities, but that's what courts and judges are for, to determine if what a given person said constitutes hate speech.
 

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
But again, people will turn it around and say they're being discriminated against for their "beliefs." That's why we haven't banned the KKK.
 

Adore

Party.
310
Posts
11
Years
But again, people will turn it around and say they're being discriminated against for their "beliefs." That's why we haven't banned the KKK.
Bigots aren't a protected class and have no history of true oppression in any part of the world (in fact, they have a history of supremacy). It's a false equivalence.
 

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
Bigots aren't a protected class and have no history of true oppression in any part of the world (in fact, they have a history of supremacy). It's a false equivalence.

I'm not saying they are a protected class. You're missing my point and if you seriously think that a gay man would defend bigotry or believe that bigots are an oppressed class then I'm genuinely shocked :v What I am saying is that's how it's going to get turned around when we start censoring hate speech. It's why it hasn't happened in America. Here, religious people believe they're being discriminated against because they can't deny service to LGBT+ people, and they say that laws can't be made to force them to do it because it's religious discrimination. This is a real thing that happens all the time and it's why I never advocate for censoring hate speech through the law.
 

Adore

Party.
310
Posts
11
Years
I'm not saying they are a protected class. You're missing my point and if you seriously think that a gay man would defend bigotry or believe that bigots are an oppressed class then I'm genuinely shocked :v What I am saying is that's how it's going to get turned around when we start censoring hate speech. It's why it hasn't happened in America. Here, religious people believe they're being discriminated against because they can't deny service to LGBT+ people, and they say that laws can't be made to force them to do it because it's religious discrimination. This is a real thing that happens all the time and it's why I never advocate for censoring hate speech through the law.
I'm gay too, lol. I understand, and you're right. That argument is all too common and successful here. But I'm saying that their logic is crap. They don't understand that secularism is law here, and that obeying that law isn't "discrimination."
 

Tek

939
Posts
10
Years
My view is that the statement "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." is to be taken at face value. It is not the place of government to regulate speech. At all. Period.

It is the responsibility of each the members of a Republic to become the best versions of themselves and to assist the other members in that endeavor as much as possible. It's the only way a free Republic can remain in existence (and, on a side note, I think the erosion of our liberties and the systemic dysfunction we are dealing with is a failure over generations of people to engage in that pursuit).

I think also that the Founding Fathers may have shared this view, given that they were fighting a longstanding tyrannical government, and that there are no caveats written into the Amendment - not about treason, libel, hate speech, none of it. They simply said "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
 
Last edited:

Vragon

Guest
0
Posts
So about, "hate speech", while I don't condone it being here I understand that we can't just censor things by using law. While yes they can use the whole "discrimination against us" argument, there's also the issue of what is hate speech's limits. The moment you start censoring things by law the sooner that can be abused.To me, speech shouldn't be tampered with bedsides what our laws already are.

The problem with firing people from their job for hate speech is that they see it as a form of discrimination against them. Hence why we have those stupid "religious freedom" arguments when people want to say how much they hate gay people and not be judged/hated for it. We should still fire them but it really doesn't do anything to deter them from being total twats.

Of course, however there is something that is needed to be understood about this whole thing. Government shouldn't censor speech, but that doesn't mean all speech is seen in a positivity. Society is in it's own way a "speech counter" to hate speech, since you'd have to have society on your side in order for what you to say not be in a positive light.
Yes we haven't banned the KKK, but they aren't seen in a positive light.
Yes there are still people calling for cops death, but outside the radical group there seen as bad.
Yes there are still LGBT haters, but they are looked away from nowadays.

My point is that while you can't have a law censor speech, society does a somewhat good job telling you which ones are bad. Yes it's not perfect, but when it comes to laws you can't have exceptions to rules. Society's view is easier to bend to good behavior.

Oh and before anyone brings out the "What if society is supportive of that kind of talk,"
1) America's society is pretty diverse. Some places are one thing others are another. Each one has their own speaking standards, so your dealing with a wide array of societal speaking standards.
2) Society still has a sense of inclusion. America has been and still is evolving in terms of acceptance and inclusion. Everyone has an opinion and everyone can say said opinion, but society can say if that opinion should be looked well.
3) Society can still in its own terms "Punish" those that do hate speech by shunning them. You see if a store does discriminate against a race, that business will most likely closed down due to negative reception and neglect from customers. Hate speech isn't taken lightly and those that support people who have made bad claims, don't want to lose reputation as well and don't want to support such people.
 

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
Of course, however there is something that is needed to be understood about this whole thing. Government shouldn't censor speech, but that doesn't mean all speech is seen in a positivity. Society is in it's own way a "speech counter" to hate speech, since you'd have to have society on your side in order for what you to say not be in a positive light.
Yes we haven't banned the KKK, but they aren't seen in a positive light.
Yes there are still people calling for cops death, but outside the radical group there seen as bad.
Yes there are still LGBT haters, but they are looked away from nowadays.

I know that, that's what I've been saying :v
 

Vragon

Guest
0
Posts
I know that, that's what I've been saying :v

Trev, I wasn't saying you weren't. I was using your comment as a leap off to my extended detailed point. Sorry, if I wasn't clear about my usage of your quote, I meant no counter to your statement. I just wanted a good base so I didn't have to type so much but yeah, sorry about not being clear.....
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
Ken White is one of my favorite bloggers ever and one of the main things he blogs about is free speech. He has had a lot to say about the topic over the years. I'd like to link a few of his posts because he's much more eloquent and informed about the topic than I am.
https://www.popehat.com/2014/01/21/the-self-perpetuating-logic-of-censorship/
https://www.popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/
https://www.popehat.com/2017/02/10/erdogan-and-the-european-view-of-free-speech/ (NSFW text at the end)

I could link many more, but these three seemed especially relevant to the current discussion. I've mentioned it before, but policing speech based on content can only end in one way: with those laws being used by those with power against those without it. I can't imagine anyone looking at our government and saying "yes, they should have the right to determine what kinds of things I can or cannot say." Moreover, I can't imagine anyone actually familiar with how the so-called "European system" of speech works actually supporting it. I'll take more speech protections over less any day.
 
Last edited:

HIMDogson

Rationally Royalist
15
Posts
6
Years
Ken White is one of my favorite bloggers ever and one of the main things he blogs about is free speech. He has had a lot to say about the topic over the years. I'd like to link a few of his posts because he's much more eloquent and informed about the topic than I am.
https://www.popehat.com/2014/01/21/the-self-perpetuating-logic-of-censorship/
https://www.popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/
https://www.popehat.com/2017/02/10/erdogan-and-the-european-view-of-free-speech/ (NSFW text at the end)

I could link many more, but these three seemed especially relevant to the current discussion. I've mentioned it before, but policing speech based on content can only end in one way: with those laws being used by those with power against those without it. I can't imagine anyone looking at our government and saying "yes, they should have the right to determine what kinds of things I can or cannot say." Moreover, I can't imagine anyone actually familiar with how the so-called "European system" of speech works actually supporting it. I'll take more speech protections over less any day.

Few things. First, how is it inherently bad that speech laws would be used by those in power against those without it? In fact, if you dissect that statement, this essentially describes government; people in power governing people who aren't in power.

Secondly, you object to the government determining what one can and cannot say. This frankly doesn't make sense; it can only be interpreted as a call for at least no restrictions on speech until the government is trustworthy(whatever that means) or for someone other than the government to be making these restrictions, in which case, who? The fact is that every country in the world with a functioning legal system has some restrictions on free speech; the only areas of difference ar equation exactly should be legal to say and what shouldn't. TL;DR: even America restricts slander and lo and behold, it has not devolved into an Orwellian dystopia. Some restrictions on free speech will always be needed and there isn't reason to believe extending this to hate speech will be the last straw setting society on an inevitable course towards tyranny.
 

Tek

939
Posts
10
Years
TL;DR: even America restricts slander and lo and behold, it has not devolved into an Orwellian dystopia. Some restrictions on free speech will always be needed and there isn't reason to believe extending this to hate speech will be the last straw setting society on an inevitable course towards tyranny.

America today resembles Orwell's 1984 in many ways, actually. Cameras are installed at every intersection and in televisions which can be used and are being used to monitor behavior. Government agencies surreptitiously gather phone and email data and lie about it under oath. Government propaganda is now legal under the Countering Foreign Disinformation Act. News outlets contradict themselves constantly, I guess assuming no one will notice. Bad guys are characterized on national TV for us to collectively rage against.

When citizens give their power to government by allowing it to regulate speech, free speech no longer exists; you are legally obligated not to say certain things. As has been said, when you trade liberty for security you end up with neither. Governments regularly abuse power, which is exactly why the US Constitution was designed to prevent the Government from being allowed to limit your speech and your armory.

Without those two things, you are absolutely powerless against tyrants.
 
Last edited:

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
Few things. First, how is it inherently bad that speech laws would be used by those in power against those without it?
Because the power would inevitably be abused to silence speech that those with power don't appreciate.

In fact, if you dissect that statement, this essentially describes government; people in power governing people who aren't in power.
And vesting too much power in the government is not a good thing, lest we find ourselves unable to oppose a tyrannical regime.

Secondly, you object to the government determining what one can and cannot say. This frankly doesn't make sense; it can only be interpreted as a call for at least no restrictions on speech until the government is trustworthy(whatever that means) or for someone other than the government to be making these restrictions, in which case, who?
We currently restrict a few very narrowly defined categories of speech; that is, we restrict speech in these categories regardless of "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Restrictions that regulate speech based on "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content" are what I universally object to because allowing the government to police speech based on what it says is (a) wide open to abuse and (b) unethical, as people should (and do) have the right to express any opinions, even if we think those opinions are awful.

Moreover, I more broadly object to new categorical exceptions on speech; I think our existing set of narrowly-defined restrictions is more than adequate and doesn't meaningfully restrict what opinions and ideas people can express.

The fact is that every country in the world with a functioning legal system has some restrictions on free speech
That does not speak to whether this proposed new restriction on speech (in this case, "hate speech") is justifiable. It is my belief that it is not.

the only areas of difference ar equation exactly should be legal to say and what shouldn't. TL;DR: even America restricts slander and lo and behold, it has not devolved into an Orwellian dystopia.
Because as I have pointed out, that restriction on speech is (a) categorical, not content-based, and (b) very narrowly defined (at least in the US). The way defamation is defined in US law, I do not believe it presents a meaningful restriction on the ability of people to express their ideas and opinions.

Some restrictions on free speech will always be needed and there isn't reason to believe extending this to hate speech will be the last straw setting society on an inevitable course towards tyranny.
No, but it would be a step, because it's an extraordinarily bad idea. Would civilization break down overnight as a result? No. Would hate speech laws be used against people and groups who their proponents typically support, like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall St., and AntiFa? You would be incredibly naive to think they wouldn't. Moreover, you better believe that conservative Christians would use these same laws to restrict criticism and satire of Christianity.

But that's assuming you want to create a categorical exception to hate speech. If you'd rather create a content-based exception to "only the bad kinds of hate speech," then you have an even more overt problem: who creates these exceptions? A bunch of rich old white men working on getting richer and older (and probably whiter if they could)? Because that's who currently holds the power, and that is traditionally who has held the power since our nation's inception. And how do we determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad?" Because there have been countless times in human history where the majority opinion about what was right was, in hindsight, incredibly unethical. You seem very optimistic about our current government's ability to only restrict the kinds of speech you think are bad; I am much less so. Moreover, even if I thought they could, I wouldn't, because it's not right. The proper response to bad ideas is not to hide them, it is to expose them to the light and illustrate why they are bad so that people who encounter those ideas are armed with the knowledge and wisdom to resist them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tek

Tek

939
Posts
10
Years
Because the power would inevitably be abused to silence speech that those with power don't appreciate.

It seems difficult to prove the inevitability of such abuse. A stronger argument is to point out that governments have abused their power over the governed throughout history, almost without exception.

Which matters only to the extent that one is interested in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for oneself, one's family, and all other sentient beings.
 
Last edited:

HIMDogson

Rationally Royalist
15
Posts
6
Years
America today resembles Orwell's 1984 in many ways, actually. Cameras are installed at every intersection and in televisions which can be used and are being used to monitor behavior. Government agencies surreptitiously gather phone and email data and lie about it under oath. Government propaganda is now legal under the Countering Foreign Disinformation Act. News outlets contradict themselves constantly, I guess assuming no one will notice. Bad guys are characterized on national TV for us to collectively rage against.

When citizens give their power to government by allowing it to regulate speech, free speech no longer exists; you are legally obligated not to say certain things. As has been said, when you trade liberty for security you end up with neither. Governments regularly abuse power, which is exactly why the US Constitution was designed to prevent the Government from being allowed to limit your speech and your armory.

Without those two things, you are absolutely powerless against tyrants.
Very few of these things I have problems with, especaillly not cameras being in public places. I think it would be a great benefit to fighting crime, and not prevent a lot of wrongful convictions due to unreliable eyewitness testimony. This goes for both of you, but I don't think that the idea of a citizenry able to resist tyranny is a useful concept. As long as the government is democratic, I think, you don't have the right to violently rebel under any circumstances. If the government isn't democratic, then, naturally, you won't have the right to revolt. Basically, in any society that will logically have it the right to revolt will only ever be harmful. Furthermore, equipping citizens to revolt in practice only breaks down rule of law, which is how throughout history authoritarian regimes have arisen. Democracy cannot exist without rule of law, and authoritarian leaders, from Lenin to Mao to Pol Pot to Robespierre to Franco, have more often than not come to power through revolution, rather than through democratic election. Hitler is the main exception, of course, but if an autocrat comes to power democratically you still don't have the right to resist them until they become an autocrat.

Right, answers for twocows in bold.

Because the power would inevitably be abused to silence speech that those with power don't appreciate.
Inevitable is a strong word here, given that there are plenty of examples of societies where this by and large has not happened. Again, as I said before, I am not for the banning of hate speech as long as hate speech remains the ill defined term that it is. However, I believe that to define that term is, in fact, doable.

And vesting too much power in the government is not a good thing, lest we find ourselves unable to oppose a tyrannical regime.
See above.

We currently restrict a few very narrowly defined categories of speech; that is, we restrict speech in these categories regardless of "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Restrictions that regulate speech based on "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content" are what I universally object to because allowing the government to police speech based on what it says is (a) wide open to abuse and (b) unethical, as people should (and do) have the right to express any opinions, even if we think those opinions are awful.
First point here is that it's wide open to abuse. I hold that it is not wide open to abuse as long as the exact types of speech banned are clearly defined, and any additions to that list are added democratically(possibly by referendum). Secondly, saying that something should remain the case because someone has the right to that isn't enough. I know that, as it stands in the US, people do have this right. I'm arguing that they shouldn't.

Moreover, I more broadly object to new categorical exceptions on speech; I think our existing set of narrowly-defined restrictions is more than adequate and doesn't meaningfully restrict what opinions and ideas people can express.
My main problem with America's current restrictions is that it allows speech that is de facto incitement to violence too much leeway. Like, if I say "All Muslims are terrorists and they threaten you every day" that is t technically calling for violence, but it can be easily interpreted this way. Of course, it should be up to a judge and jury to decide if it was REASONABLE to determine if what was said qualifies as hate speech.

That does not speak to whether this proposed new restriction on speech (in this case, "hate speech") is justifiable. It is my belief that it is not.

Because as I have pointed out, that restriction on speech is (a) categorical, not content-based, and (b) very narrowly defined (at least in the US). The way defamation is defined in US law, I do not believe it presents a meaningful restriction on the ability of people to express their ideas and opinions.

No, but it would be a step, because it's an extraordinarily bad idea. Would civilization break down overnight as a result? No. Would hate speech laws be used against people and groups who their proponents typically support, like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall St., and AntiFa? You would be incredibly naive to think they wouldn't. Moreover, you better believe that conservative Christians would use these same laws to restrict criticism and satire of Christianity.
I am all for Antifa being cracked down upon(they are vigilantes at best, and outright criminal thugs at worst), and if BLM do anything that would violate the law, then those members that do this should be punished. Same goes for Occupy Wall Street. Calling for violence against the White Race or Christians, including implicitly, should be punished like any other race; I don't see why you think I wouldn't support this. As for Christians, if the majority of people truly vote for this, well, that's a shame(I'm a Monarchist so also think that any restrictions should come with the consent of the monarch but let's not clutter up this any further because I already released one anti-Paine manifesto) but you seem to be under the misconception in general that I favor the passing of a law that says "anything that can be offensive is banned". That isn't the case; I think that banned speech should be extended to a very specific type of speech, of which critiquing a religion is not, nor is it in most European countries(remember when there was the Mohammed drawing controversy in Denmark? Denmark allowed that)

But that's assuming you want to create a categorical exception to hate speech. If you'd rather create a content-based exception to "only the bad kinds of hate speech," then you have an even more overt problem: who creates these exceptions? A bunch of rich old white men working on getting richer and older (and probably whiter if they could)? Because that's who currently holds the power, and that is traditionally who has held the power since our nation's inception. And how do we determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad?" Because there have been countless times in human history where the majority opinion about what was right was, in hindsight, incredibly unethical. You seem very optimistic about our current government's ability to only restrict the kinds of speech you think are bad; I am much less so. Moreover, even if I thought they could, I wouldn't, because it's not right. The proper response to bad ideas is not to hide them, it is to expose them to the light and illustrate why they are bad so that people who encounter those ideas are armed with the knowledge and wisdom to resist them.
This logic is flawed at best, frankly. Yes, the majority can be wrong. But what other basis are you going to use for determining if laws are morally justified? The at the time extremely crazy opinions of a few forward thinking radicals? That isn't very democratic. Your last argument is a common one. The kind of speech I'm proposing opposing is never used with the intent of seriously convincing anyone, of engaging in a good faith debate. It's used with the intent of rallying a crowd. It's the speech that Marat used to convince the Parisian mobs to tear women and children apart, and it is a threat to public order and, therefore, democracy.
 

Tek

939
Posts
10
Years
Basically, in any society that will logically have it the right to revolt will only ever be harmful. Furthermore, equipping citizens to revolt in practice only breaks down rule of law, which is how throughout history authoritarian regimes have arisen.

Both statements can be disproven with actual examples (since you've framed them in absolute terms), the American colonial revolution being the primary example. But I won't say any more about that here since it's getting off-topic.
 
Back
Top