Freedom of Speech
- Thread starter gimmepie
- Start date
- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
Hard to say exactly. It shouldn't be completely limitless, but it should at minimum cover freedom to criticize the government or others in power. I'd say it's somewhere in the middle, closer to limitless end of the scale, but not quite there.
Palamon
Silence is Purple
- 8,149
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 27
- Snezhnaya, Teyvat.
- Seen today
I feel like Freedom of Speech is extremely flawed. You should be allowed to speak against political powers, and whatnot, but you shouldn't use Freedom of Speech for obviously immoral things, like saying you're going to inflict violence upon others. That's the boundary, I guess, what have you.
Basically, what I'm saying it, you shouldn't be allowed to use Freedom of Speech to say whatever you want, but you should be allowed to speak against/criticize political powers. That kind of thing.
Basically, what I'm saying it, you shouldn't be allowed to use Freedom of Speech to say whatever you want, but you should be allowed to speak against/criticize political powers. That kind of thing.
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,494
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 24
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
I agree with Vivace and Esper. Freedom of speech shouldn't be unlimited. You should be able to criticize government, others, etc, but you shouldn't be allowed to threaten others. Nor should you be able to slander and libel others.
"I really don't like Steve" / "I really don't like the government" - Sure bro, have fun.
"I'm going to murder Steve" / "I'm going to bomb parliament" - Okay, don't blame the government when they take preventative measures.
Say whatever you damn well please, but we'll take your word for it. Because assuming you're a liar would be unfair, right?
"I'm going to murder Steve" / "I'm going to bomb parliament" - Okay, don't blame the government when they take preventative measures.
Say whatever you damn well please, but we'll take your word for it. Because assuming you're a liar would be unfair, right?
killer-curry
Oro.........?
- 2,521
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 25
- Malaysia
- Seen Feb 26, 2021
Well, nothing exactly that freedom as you imagine. In reality, we still need some limitations just not to cross over the borderline in terms of the topic/issue sensitivity, consideration about the public and also respects.
Sometimes, words can be the justice for people to say the truth or expressing their opinions but sometimes words can be a weapon that can kill someone's heart and also engage an unwanted fight between races, religion or even countries.
Sometimes, words can be the justice for people to say the truth or expressing their opinions but sometimes words can be a weapon that can kill someone's heart and also engage an unwanted fight between races, religion or even countries.
Trev
[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
- 1,505
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Age 27
- Seen Nov 15, 2023
Freedom of speech has been restricted in various ways that protect public safety, but ultimately, the government can't ban offensive speech. Just like you can't ban someone from calling a gay man a fairy or a f****t, you also can't ban someone desecrating the flag (which surprisingly has been defended by the U.S. government since the 60s). However, freedom of speech doesn't entail freedom from social consequences, and that doesn't stop individual businesses/universities/entities from determining what kind of speech is allowed on their premises and what isn't. If we hold people accountable for what they say, just as much as we do with the actions they take, there shouldn't be issues with freedom of speech.
Dter ic
Fire Emblem....[b]HEROES[/b]
- 741
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Age 27
- (Un)united Kingdom
- Seen Dec 15, 2018
Freedom of speech means that you can express your belief or view on something but does not necessarily imply that it can be said without consequences. E.g. announcing threats of violence.
I believe one extreme take of censorship would be if someone were to criticise an authority figure or government and that person was later killed or forced to go silent on their view. That, or if information that negatively portrays a person or authority is publicly inaccessible.
I believe one extreme take of censorship would be if someone were to criticise an authority figure or government and that person was later killed or forced to go silent on their view. That, or if information that negatively portrays a person or authority is publicly inaccessible.
SunsetGreen
Banned
- 43
- Posts
- 7
- Years
- Age 32
- USA
- Seen Jun 7, 2017
u can say whatever you want but society will always judge you
Alakazam17
[b]Long time no see![/b]
- 5,641
- Posts
- 18
- Years
- Age 36
- Canada
- Seen Oct 27, 2020
The two models for free speech I consider are the American model, which is designed to protect the perpetrator, and the European or Canadian model, which protects the victim. For example, in the US it is legal for Neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighbourhood(assuming they don't "incite violence"), but in these other countries it usually wouldn't be allowed. I tend to favour this latter case, because I would argue that said Neo-Nazis are inciting violence.
To put it more broadly, I think it should be fine to say you don't like a person or group, but I'd draw the line at incitement of violence, which I believe should include hate speech and propaganda, at least if they can be proven to have the intention to lead to violence.
To put it more broadly, I think it should be fine to say you don't like a person or group, but I'd draw the line at incitement of violence, which I believe should include hate speech and propaganda, at least if they can be proven to have the intention to lead to violence.
The US model of free speech is what I believe to be the gold standard. All speech is permissible with a few narrowly defined exceptions, such as true threats, obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct. I think that other than obscenity, these exceptions make perfect sense and are both necessary and sufficient to protect the rights of other people.
I don't think that other proposed exceptions to free speech provide any additional necessary protection and I think such exceptions would be used to stifle a great deal of important speech. The First Amendment is a restriction on the government; it restricts the government from making laws that tell you what you can or cannot say. Exceptions to the First Amendment will be applied unilaterally by people on both sides. If we make an exception for hate speech, it will be used by those on the right to attack and silence speech they see as anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-male, etc. Blasphemy laws would necessarily end up stifling a great deal of satire that pokes fun at various religions. An exception that prohibits depictions of animal cruelty could be used by the meat industry against animal rights groups trying to portray bad farming conditions.
When you speak out against wrongdoing, when you say something that makes someone look bad, the people responsible often want nothing more than to silence you. This is what the First Amendment protects us from. Any time you propose a content-based exception to free speech, understand that it will be used by bad people against good people. That's why we need strong free speech protections. Yes, as a result, you get a lot of nasty and hurtful speech out there. The best response to that is positive, productive speech. Westboro Baptist Church gets away with saying and doing a lot of really nasty stuff, and as a result you have the groups like the Patriot Guard Riders who stepped up and did far more good in response. WBC's awfulness also constantly serves to make others aware that people like that do exist, that their brand of hate isn't dead, and that we always need people to speak out against that kind of hatred. Evil is much more sinister when it's hiding and nothing lets it hide better than permitting censorship.
I don't think that other proposed exceptions to free speech provide any additional necessary protection and I think such exceptions would be used to stifle a great deal of important speech. The First Amendment is a restriction on the government; it restricts the government from making laws that tell you what you can or cannot say. Exceptions to the First Amendment will be applied unilaterally by people on both sides. If we make an exception for hate speech, it will be used by those on the right to attack and silence speech they see as anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-male, etc. Blasphemy laws would necessarily end up stifling a great deal of satire that pokes fun at various religions. An exception that prohibits depictions of animal cruelty could be used by the meat industry against animal rights groups trying to portray bad farming conditions.
When you speak out against wrongdoing, when you say something that makes someone look bad, the people responsible often want nothing more than to silence you. This is what the First Amendment protects us from. Any time you propose a content-based exception to free speech, understand that it will be used by bad people against good people. That's why we need strong free speech protections. Yes, as a result, you get a lot of nasty and hurtful speech out there. The best response to that is positive, productive speech. Westboro Baptist Church gets away with saying and doing a lot of really nasty stuff, and as a result you have the groups like the Patriot Guard Riders who stepped up and did far more good in response. WBC's awfulness also constantly serves to make others aware that people like that do exist, that their brand of hate isn't dead, and that we always need people to speak out against that kind of hatred. Evil is much more sinister when it's hiding and nothing lets it hide better than permitting censorship.
Phantom1
[css-div="font-size: 12px; font-variant: small-cap
- 1,182
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Age 33
- Minnesota
- Seen Sep 19, 2017
While I am atheist, I do follow a moral code, surprisingly that of the Satanic Temple.
The seven Satanic tenants are good ideals to abide by, and many can apply to free speech; in particular the fourth.
"The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own."
Basically, you are free to speak your mind, and you cannot prevent others from doing so because it means you forsake your right to do the same.
On the other hand, there are the Nine statements, which basically say, you can speak your mind, but you need to be aware of the consequences of doing so.
Essentially: Call me every name in the book. Make your threats. But when I defend myself, whether verbally, physically, or by the aid of others, know I am simply enacting my own free speech.
The seven Satanic tenants are good ideals to abide by, and many can apply to free speech; in particular the fourth.
"The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own."
Basically, you are free to speak your mind, and you cannot prevent others from doing so because it means you forsake your right to do the same.
On the other hand, there are the Nine statements, which basically say, you can speak your mind, but you need to be aware of the consequences of doing so.
Essentially: Call me every name in the book. Make your threats. But when I defend myself, whether verbally, physically, or by the aid of others, know I am simply enacting my own free speech.
- 42
- Posts
- 7
- Years
- Age 34
- Sniffing out your sock puppets
- Seen Jul 3, 2017
Freedom of speech is for all by our Constitution but sadly in today's society it's only okay for certain groups to have that freedom, and any who oppose are silenced.
Melody
Banned
- 6,460
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Age 35
- Cuddling those close to me
- Seen Mar 4, 2018
I'm a firm believer in Freedom of Speech. It is certainly a golden standard we should try to uphold in most cases.
Now, while you may say whatever you want and whatever you feel, you can't expect that to go entirely without consequence. Freedom of Speech as a right only protects you from Government, Police, and from idiots trying to justify infringement upon your other basic human rights by claiming you said something they, in a nutshell, didn't like.
You cannot perform some discriminatory act and claim it as "Free Speech"
Now, while you may say whatever you want and whatever you feel, you can't expect that to go entirely without consequence. Freedom of Speech as a right only protects you from Government, Police, and from idiots trying to justify infringement upon your other basic human rights by claiming you said something they, in a nutshell, didn't like.
You cannot perform some discriminatory act and claim it as "Free Speech"
You're really going to need to elaborate on that one, especially on how it relates to the topic.
Vragon
Guest
- 0
- Posts
It's already been identified that speech that incites violence upon someone or their rights is not protected by freedom of speech. I can't really add anything to that, but that the matters of inciting violence would have to be discussed on the specific scenario. I will say that saying hurtful things aren't inciting violence and can happen. We can't really pick and choose favorites when it comes to rules and freedoms so there's that too.