Freedom of speech

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**david choe**

thegreatchimp wrote:

By and large I do agree with free speech, but consider he following scenarios

1) A group of neo-nazis showing up to a Jewish burial and making an antisemitic sermon on the sidelines (which isn't a personal insult)

2) You're a firm believer in evolution. The school your kids are going to decide that half their science curriculum will be taught as per Creationist beliefs. (the teachers board are Creationists, and they feel it is their right to free speech to teach all their students their beliefs).

Those are extreme scenarios, but my point is staunch belief in free speech breaks down when you find yourself subjected to a message you perceive as an assault on your values or beliefs, or otherwise intolerant. We're not robots after all. I've found that some people (and I stress some and not all) who tend to play the "freedom of speech" card are bigots, or otherwise obnoxious persons. What's more they think their right to free speech transcends the law, and won't acknowledge that they are for example disturbing the peace. In many cases they are ignorant of the law altogether, and when they're thrown in jail all they do is bitterly complain for what they ignorantly perceive as a violation of their rights.

Its all well and good in principle. In practice, if the speaker disregards social etiquette or is disrespectful towards others' beliefs, it will reach a point where conflict ensues.

It is part of the price of freedom of free speech and I would take it.

Again, I live in a land where my rights of free speech is gone now. We can not talk about our govt or the monarchy, to do so will land you in jail. I ain't mean a few days in jail....they can throw the book at you and you can be there for 15 years!

Since my rights are gone, I laugh at the people complaining about being call fat.

The price for the abused of the small individuals doesn't out weight the liberty for the society as a whole. I rather not give power to the govt about censorship or policing verbal abuse. Not worth it.

Trust me "les majesty" can be aply by my govt to get anybody they want in jail. Oh you said that the tax is too high? Well that is talking bad about our Monachy because they support this tax rate....you are breaking les majesty law. 6 months jail!

**Computron**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

But even without an individual parent society will still care for children.

Not necessarily, and sometimes despite best intentions, the child grows up feeling abandoned due to no parents being around. If you look at the Rotherham child prostitution ring, involving at least 1400 girls, those girls were from broken homes, many were in State care facilities. The lack of a proper family environment (and community network) left them open to being exploited by these grooming gangs.

**Haight**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
sebster wrote:

Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.

You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.

Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.

Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.

You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?

Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.

Except libel and slander are NOT prosecutable offenses, at least in the states. They are torts, meaning that one can seek civil redress and recompense in the civil courts, but no one is getting arrested for Slander.

I hate Hate Speech. I love the right of idiots everywhere to engage in it. In fact speech we dislike - loathe even - is the most important speech to fight to protect.

The other great thing about purveyors of hate speech is that they immediately confirm what idiotic gakkers the speaker is without wasting a lot of time otherwise coming to that conclusion that it takes me with most people.

EDIT: also... there's a metric feth ton of pseudo law in this thread relating to children, their rights, the rights of parents and guardians, and the rights of parents and guardians in relation to their kid (and by proxy there should be talk of the states rights to intervene in some and / or all of these scenarios, and yet there's not...). I won't take the time to directly comment on all of it, but there's a lot of Family Law misinformation in this thread. I just wanted to point that out.

Two final points on that; my comments are all from the point of view of law in the US. And, two, nope, not a lawyer, but several law degrees, and a certified paralegal that did freelance paid legal research and writing for many, many years, focusing on criminal and IP law as concentrations.

**Computron**

Frazzled wrote:
Words are not thoughts?

Some people's words have no thought attached to them.

**Sienisoturi**

At this point it's probably a good idea to separate laws that affect rest of the freedom of speech and laws that regard libel, slander etc., as cases like that are easy to judge according to the harm principle. Also, I do not intend this as an attack, but simply a question of interest, that AllMighty, how do you feel about the current situation in Sweden in regard of the media and freedom of speech?

**AlmightyWalrus**

To be honest I think that the biggest problem with Freedom of Speech in Sweden at the moment is that so many people have no fething clue about what it is, complaining about "censorship" when they're not allowed to use newspaper comment fields and the like to spew their drivel. You would've thought that it'd be easy to understand that it only regulates what the state is allowed to do, but no...

**Ensis Ferrae**

purplefood wrote:

Aren't funerals private ceremonies anyway?

Never stopped Westboro Baptist from pulling their antics before.

**thegreatchimp**

purplefood wrote:
School curriculum isn't quite the same as freedom of speech.
Aren't funerals private ceremonies anyway?

Your right, maybe not the best example. Yes they are private, but there's nothing stopping a hate group hanging out a short distance away. Take these guys guys for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Funeral_pickets 100% freedom of speech...and 100% despicable.

**Sienisoturi**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be honest I think that the biggest problem with Freedom of Speech in Sweden at the moment is that so many people have no fething clue about what it is, complaining about "censorship" when they're not allowed to use newspaper comment fields and the like to spew their drivel. You would've thought that it'd be easy to understand that it only regulates what the state is allowed to do, but no...

What about government funded organisations that actively go after the governments political opponents? Also, to be honest I think that sppech should be also protected from some non governmental actions, as without that there will be no de-facto freedom of speech.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Got any such organisations in mind?

**thegreatchimp**

david choe wrote:

It is part of the price of freedom of free speech and I would take it.

Again, I live in a land where my rights of free speech is gone now. We can not talk about our govt or the monarchy, to do so will land you in jail. I ain't mean a few days in jail....they can throw the book at you and you can be there for 15 years!

Since my rights are gone, I laugh at the people complaining about being call fat.

The price for the abused of the small individuals doesn't out weight the liberty for the society as a whole. I rather not give power to the govt about censorship or policing verbal abuse. Not worth it.

Trust me "les majesty" can be aply by my govt to get anybody they want in jail. Oh you said that the tax is too high? Well that is talking bad about our Monachy because they support this tax rate....you are breaking les majesty law. 6 months jail!

If that happened in my country, I'd feel the exact same way. As mentioned I'm all for free speech except where its incitement to hatred, etc. A line has to be drawn somewhere between what is free expression and what is discrimination and incitement to hatred.

**Frazzled**

Why?

**thegreatchimp**

Frazzled wrote:
Why?

Because that's what I believe & because absolutes don't work in human society. Only a Sith deals in absolutes

**Frazzled**

thegreatchimp wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Why?
Because that's what I believe & because absolutes don't work in human society. Only a Sith deals in absolutes

Only a moral relativist thinks a slippery slope is not wet.

**Sienisoturi**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Got any such organisations in mind?

As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Got any such organisations in mind?

As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.

Parties are not the state though.

**Sienisoturi**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Got any such organisations in mind?

As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.

Parties are not the state though.

But then again parties receive money from the government and they also make the decissions.

**NinjaJc01**

I wrote a speech on this for homework! Here it is:
"Freedom of speech in Modern Society
Freedom of speech is highly important in the modern world. It is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.” It is included in the UN declaration of Human rights and is recognised in the US with the first amendment to the US Constitution. It has recently been in the news due to the Charlie Hebdo shootings. On the 7th January 2015 two masked muslim extremists went into a publisher of a french comedy magazine and shot many staff in the building, after they published an image of the prophet Muhammad, which goes against their religion, this has lead to many arguments of how far freedom of speech should go, in many countries “hate speech”, which is statements which are intended to cause offence to a particular group, is illegal and is normally excluded from the freedom of speech laws. In France, I believe they have a well thought stance on religion, they allow anyone to practise any religion or belief of their choice privately, but does not allow people to push their beliefs onto the wider public, and also allows people to mock public figures and religions. In most Islamic countries, freedom of speech does not cover mocking Islam, which is considered blasphemy. I feel that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, but mocking others based on their race, religion, gender or sexuality oversteps the line."

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Got any such organisations in mind?

As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.

Parties are not the state though.

But then again parties receive money from the government and they also make the decissions.

EVERYONE recieves some sort of benefit from the state.

**thegreatchimp**

Frazzled wrote:

Only a moral relativist thinks a slippery slope is not wet.

Hmm. if you believe in something as black and white as "people should be able to say whatever they want, period" (and correct me if that's not what you're saying) then good luck with that. From my observations and reading into societies both past and present things are a lot greyer than that. Laws aren't fair -for example a law which imposes harsh sentences on thieves isn't fair to thieves. Likewise a law which allows free speech for hate groups isn't fair to the people who are subjected to abuse by those groups. And on the other hand a law which classes the propaganda of those groups as incitement to hatred would not be perceived as fair by those hate groups. Often laws or social conventions are determined by what is fairest to most people.

**Frazzled**

thegreatchimp wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Only a moral relativist thinks a slippery slope is not wet.

Hmm. if you believe in something as black and white as "people should be able to say whatever they want, period" (and correct me if that's not what you're saying) then good luck with that. From my observations and reading into societies both past and present things are a lot greyer than that. Laws aren't fair -for example a law which imposes harsh sentences on thieves isn't fair to thieves. Likewise a law which allows free speech for hate groups isn't fair to the people who are subjected to abuse by those groups. And on the other hand a law which classes the propaganda of those groups as incitement to hatred would not be perceived as fair by those hate groups. Often laws or social conventions are determined by what is fairest to most people.

Or fairest to the ones with the most power. Thats why a bright line is better.

**Sienisoturi**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Got any such organisations in mind?

As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.

Parties are not the state though.

But then again parties receive money from the government and they also make the decissions.

EVERYONE recieves some sort of benefit from the state.

Yes, but you forgot the other part, that parties are the ones that in the end make all the decissions in a country.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Only a moral relativist thinks a slippery slope is not wet.

See, in my experience, it is the moral absolutists that tend to slide down the slippery slope; despite the noise made moral relativists.

In other words, the "slippery slope" is only "wet" if you want it to be.

**thegreatchimp**

Frazzled wrote:

Or fairest to the ones with the most power.

Unfortunately very true in many cases

**Prestor Jon**

thegreatchimp wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Or fairest to the ones with the most power.

Unfortunately very true in many cases

Laws aren't supposed to be about "fairness" at all. Of course we don't live in an ideal world either.

**thegreatchimp**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Laws aren't supposed to be about "fairness" at all.

I believe that many modern laws are established for the very purpose of fairness, but as discussed fairness is arbitrary and subjective.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Of course we don't live in an ideal world either.

No we certainly don't.

**Frazzled**

thegreatchimp wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Laws aren't supposed to be about "fairness" at all.
I believe that many modern laws are established for the very purpose of fairness, but as discussed fairness is arbitrary and subjective.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Of course we don't live in an ideal world either.
No we certainly don't.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: ... "laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing."

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Got any such organisations in mind?

As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.

Parties are not the state though.

But then again parties receive money from the government and they also make the decissions.

EVERYONE recieves some sort of benefit from the state.

Yes, but you forgot the other part, that parties are the ones that in the end make all the decissions in a country.

But not in their capacities as parties. There's a difference between the State, in its capacity as the sovereign wielder of legitimate violence, trying to silence detractors and some of the constituent parts of the State trying to counter their political enemies. If parties were not allowed to try to counter their political opponents there would be no election debates, no creating opinion whatsoever.

**Sienisoturi**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sienisoturi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Got any such organisations in mind?

As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.

Parties are not the state though.

But then again parties receive money from the government and they also make the decissions.

EVERYONE recieves some sort of benefit from the state.

Yes, but you forgot the other part, that parties are the ones that in the end make all the decissions in a country.

But not in their capacities as parties. There's a difference between the State, in its capacity as the sovereign wielder of legitimate violence, trying to silence detractors and some of the constituent parts of the State trying to counter their political enemies. If parties were not allowed to try to counter their political opponents there would be no election debates, no creating opinion whatsoever.

>But not in their capacities as parties. There's a difference between the State, in its capacity as the sovereign wielder of legitimate violence, trying to silence detractors and some of the constituent parts of the State trying to counter their political enemies.

It is true that the parties are not really the state de-jure, but de-facto the parties are the ones that rule the country especialy in the case of social democrats in sweden.

>If parties were not allowed to try to counter their political opponents there would be no election debates, no creating opinion whatsoever.

I doubt that the practices of the swedish anti-fa can be considered legit ways to influence political opinion, as it often includes threats and violence.

Anyways, enough of this part of the argument. The real question in this case is not that are parties effectively the state or not, but the real question now is that what to think about organisations, that by the threat of harm (losing job, violence, etc.) try to oppose freedom of speech. Many in this thread have said that freedom of speech only protects from the government, but in my opinion it should also protect you from harm that can be caused by other people. For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sienisoturi wrote:
Anyways, enough of this part of the argument. The real question in this case is not that are parties effectively the state or not, but the real question now is that what to think about organisations, that by the threat of harm (losing job, violence, etc.) try to oppose freedom of speech. Many in this thread have said that freedom of speech only protects from the government, but in my opinion it should also protect you from harm that can be caused by other people. For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.

So no advocating harm or spreading falsehoods about groups of people then? That's what I've been saying all along!