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.

**Compel**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

But, it still falls under the "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" banner.

I've no real opinion on it all, but I don't entirely understand this concept. I mean, basically, there's no other way to stop someone from saying something, except for applying consequences. I mean, the statement might as well be, "free to say what you want, except when we put a chip in your brain that will shock you before you try to say something."

Am I making any sense? It just seems like a meaningless phrase to me.

**LordofHats**

Compel wrote:
It just seems like a meaningless phrase to me.

It's not. Freedom of speech defines one's ability to speak without consequence imposed by law or governance. It is not a freedom from all consequence, such as public condemnation at the hands of society at large. In its essence the point of Freedom of Speech is to allow for an unrestricted by law public form, not a public form that is unable to call racism racism, or tell someone they're being stupid/an idiot/a pig/whatever. Being shamed into silence is NOT censorship. Censorship is the act of a system, not a conscious decision on the part of an individual that "maybe I should shut up now before I embarrass myself further."

**Ensis Ferrae**

Compel wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:

But, it still falls under the "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" banner.

I've no real opinion on it all, but I don't entirely understand this concept. I mean, basically, there's no other way to stop someone from saying something, except for applying consequences. I mean, the statement might as well be, "free to say what you want, except when we put a chip in your brain that will shock you before you try to say something."

Am I making any sense? It just seems like a meaningless phrase to me.

To allude to an earlier example: If, for instance, I go out into an area in Tacoma or Seattle that is heavily populated with [x] minority, and start shouting every racist thing against them that I can come up with, it's going to piss quite a few of them off.... Even if they don't do anything to me while I'm doing this activity, they are still making a mental note of me, and no matter what I do in that area in the future, I will always be that "racist a-hole", and quite probably be denied services in food establishments and other shops/stores, etc.

I personally think that there are many people who are extremely racist internally, but never communicate that racism, because of the negative consequences of being labelled a racist or the potential of having violence perpetrated against them for those views.

I hope that sort of clears it up?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the reason why the 1st Amendment in the US constitution is written the way it is, is to hold the government accountable, and the people are saying, "If we're unhappy with the way things in government are going, we have the Right to speak out against it, and you CANNOT put us in jail for those views"

If you look in history, quite a number of places that limited freedom of speech did so to "protect" the government or the head of state from criticism (ie, Nazi era Germany, Fascist Italy, etc)

**H.B.M.C.**

People shouldn't be able to stop or restrict what you say, but by the same token people shouldn't have to give you a platform to say what you want to say. So if you firmly believe that the Mexican Jew Lizards are taking over the planet, then by all means tell it to anyone who will listen, but not one should need to give you a place to say it. Figure that part out on your own.

**Computron**

Haight wrote:

Interesting. Is this something you could link to ? I'd love to read it if so. I would almost assume it would be the opposite in the US... at least i know GEN X (my gen) are super duper 1st amendment sensitive.

Sorry, it was something I saw in passing, but the UK has arrested people for making twitter posts so it didn't surprise me. There was a debate recently here in NZ over some t-shirt being displayed at a museum. Apparently it was banned and was part of an exhibition.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/66135757/Offensive-t-shirt-in-Canterbury-Museum-exhibition

**Riquende**

Computron wrote:
There was a debate recently here in NZ over some t-shirt being displayed at a museum. Apparently it was banned and was part of an exhibition.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/66135757/Offensive-t-shirt-in-Canterbury-Museum-exhibition

Ha. I somehow knew that article would be about that T shirt design... I had one myself in my college days, and I thought I was 'sticking it to the man' by wearing it.

**Khornholio**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.

Agree 100%

**Psienesis**

Sining wrote:
Man, what is with people who hate anonymity on the internet and freedom of speech? It's so....soviet russian. Or something I expect N.Koreans to say

The anonymity of the Internet allows private citizens to threaten other citizens with violent action (rape, murder, etc) free of consequences, even though making such a threat is a crime in every state of the Union. The victims of these crimes (most of them people of some degree of fame, however slight) have no real recourse to defend themselves, and the anonymity afforded by the vectors by which these threats are communicated permits those making such threats to continue to do so, free from consequence.

**reds8n**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.

So what do you propose we replace the stockmarket with then ?

**dogma**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Seems like a great many dudes could use a good fisticuff to blow off some steam now and again

There are arenas for that, and they aren't just for dudes. Sadly all of those arenas cost money, and showing up to work with a swollen face is often considered bad; especially if you're working at point of service.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

I think I've come to the opinion that what matters isn't that the government not be able to punish you for saying certain things, it's that the punishment be transparent. The government should be able to punish people for saying certain things (for example, you shouldn't be able to tell someone you're going to kill them) but that should be carried out on the record.

Personally, I think it's evident that the government needs to be able to use its monopoly on force to stop people from saying certain things because otherwise that speech can be used to suppress other people's free speech. For example, if I say "hello I am a Muslim" and you are like "you horrible terrorist, leave the country or I'll kill you" then you are using threats to suppress my freedom of speech. Just, that whole process should be transparent so that we can see the government is doing the right thing, as in any other criminal trial.

**Baxx**

Khornholio wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.

Agree 100%

How?

Anyone employed in trustworthy positions would be able to talk all they wanted. You go to the doctor, 10 min later the doctor posts pictures of your embarassing disease online. Or posts that you just been diagnosed by cancer. Anyone could share valuable business secrets and ruin workplaces.

You could even send death threats and blackmail without worry.

**Iron_Captain**

As soon as it criticises Putin, Russia or Communism it should be banned.

Just kidding.

I think freedom of speech should be as unrestricted as possible.
Only threats and confidential information should not be allowed to be spoken freely. I also think insults should be banned, but that is probably way too iffy to put in law properly.

**Baxx**

Iron_Captain wrote:

I think freedom of speech should be as unrestricted as possible.
Only threats and confidential information should not be allowed to be spoken freely. I also think insults should be banned, but that is probably way too iffy to put in law properly.

Agree 100%.

**Da Boss**

The confidentiality thing is interesting. Part of me thinks that organisations shouldn't have as much right to confidentiality as individuals, but my thoughts on it are not very developed.

I've seen a lot of corrupt politicians and businesses hide from consequences by using confidentiality as an excuse.

**Sienisoturi**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm going to be very impopular and say that:

a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.

b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.

c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.

To expand on c), I give you the following example:

Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?

There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.

To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:

Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.

I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.

In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.

**KiloFiX**

I'm for 100% freedom of speech.

But separately there can / should be other social compacts against threatening, etc. which have less to do with freedom of speech directly.

E.g.:

Someone could threaten another with a knife and without saying anything.

Someone could say "I'm going to kill you" in a joking fashion that would not constitute threatening.

Someone could say "I'm going to kill you" and mean it which would constitute threathening.

The latter is a concern but can / should be addressed by other laws, and not by limitations to freedom of speech.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/reports-shots-fired-copenhagen-cafe-free-speech-event-28967589

A gunman fired on a cafe in Copenhagen as it hosted a free speech event Saturday, killing one man, Danish police said. The event was organized by Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has faced numerous threats for caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad.

Danish police said the gunman shot through the windows of the Krudttoenden cafe, which the TV2 news channel said were riddled with some 30 bullet holes. Helle Merete Brix, one of the event's organizers, told The Associated Press that Vilks was at the meeting but was not hit.

"I saw a masked man running past," Brix said. "I clearly consider this as an attack on Lars Vilks."

Police were looking for the perpetrators, who they said drove away in a dark Volkswagen Polo after the shooting, which took place shortly before 4 p.m. (1500 GMT, 10 a.m. EST).

In a statement, Danish police said the victim was a 40-year-old man inside the cafe attending the event. He has not yet been identified.

Police spokesman Henrik Blandebjerg said three police colleagues at the event were also shot.

"I heard someone firing with an automatic weapons and someone shouting. Police returned the fire and I hid behind the bar. I felt surreal, like in a movie," Niels Ivar Larsen, one of the speakers at the event, told the TV2 channel.

Brix said she was ushered away with Vilks by one of the Danish police guards that he gets whenever he is in Denmark.

The cafe in northern Copenhagen, known for its jazz concerts, was hosting an event titled "Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression" when the shots were fired.

François Zimeray, the French ambassador to Denmark who was at the conference, tweeted that he was "still alive."

Vilks, a 68-year-old Swedish artist, has faced several attempted attacks and death threats after he depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a dog in 2007.

A Pennsylvania woman last year got a 10-year prison term for a plot to kill Vilks. In 2010, two brothers tried to burn down his house in southern Sweden and were imprisoned for attempted arson.

After Islamic militants attacked the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris last month, killing 12 people, Vilks told the AP that even fewer organizations were inviting him to give lectures over increased security concerns.

Vilks also said he thought Sweden's SAPO security service, which deploys bodyguards to protect him, would step up the security around him.

"This will create fear among people on a whole different level than we're used to," he said. "Charlie Hebdo was a small oasis. Not many dared do what they did."

**Asterios**

Free speech is a touchy subject since it doesn't exist, free speech means you can say anything with no reprisals, and yet if things are said that are found offensive to other groups reprisals are met, while the US law respects the right of free speech, elements within this country do not, look at the owner who was forced to sell off his team because of a (what he thought was private) conversation about his wife(ex?) going to games with a certain color group of people, was it offensive? perhaps, was it free speech? yes, did it have reprisals? hell yeah the NBA forced him to sell his team because of some morals clause.

now that's an extreme circumstance.

but like I said freedom of speech is just lip service in this country, since those who we do not agree with when it comes to their bigotry and so on are ostracized for their free speech, and only the conformist are not, then there is the whole what does free speech constitute bit, say if a guy decided to walk nude in front of school, would you object? even though this is his idea of free speech, to basically let it all hang out and show the world he has nothing to hide.

free speech is without limits, and yet while we tout free speech we have placed limits on it.

**Sigvatr**

@Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.

**AegisGrimm**

Absolute free speech unless you are:

-Expressly trying to incite violence (Saying everyone listening should immediately go out and do some horrible thing)

-Expressly threatening someone, or uttering anything that you know will absolutely lead to a dangerous social situation, ie: threatening the President's life, or yelling "bomb" or "he's got a gun" when the situation does not warrant it, etc.

Otherwise, fair game and it goes both ways. Tell someone a racial slur, and they should be free to openly declare you a guttertrash inbred scumbag that should have been aborted, if they decide they need to lower themselves to that level.

You still need laws to enforce against stupidity, or you just get anarchy.

**insaniak**

Spetulhu wrote:
It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.

Indeed.

I'm all for Freedom of Speech... but it should be combined with the responsibility to use it appropriately.

Having the freedom to say what you want doesn't mean it's always a good idea, or always necessary. Nor does it abrogate a person's responsibility to be considerate of others.

**Co'tor Shas**

To me, free speech and expression is the single most important right to have. In my mind it is not a civil right, but an inherent right that all people have.

**Peregrine**

Asterios wrote:
Free speech is a touchy subject since it doesn't exist, free speech means you can say anything with no reprisals, and yet if things are said that are found offensive to other groups reprisals are met, while the US law respects the right of free speech, elements within this country do not, look at the owner who was forced to sell off his team because of a (what he thought was private) conversation about his wife(ex?) going to games with a certain color group of people, was it offensive? perhaps, was it free speech? yes, did it have reprisals? hell yeah the NBA forced him to sell his team because of some morals clause.

I don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech. It means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for what you say, it does not in any way require that individuals refrain from reacting to speech they don't like. The NBA forcing the owner to sell his team is no different than you having a guest at your house and telling them to leave when they keep saying things you find offensive.

does free speech constitute bit, say if a guy decided to walk nude in front of school, would you object? even though this is his idea of free speech, to basically let it all hang out and show the world he has nothing to hide.

How exactly is walking around naked considered "speech"? Maybe you'd have a point if it was some kind of protest and had a clear message included, but you're really not understanding the concept of freedom of speech if you think that laws against public nudity violate your rights.

**Haight**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit:
How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?

He can mouth off and swear at me. As his legal guardian, I can ground him until he's 18.

**Asterios**

Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Free speech is a touchy subject since it doesn't exist, free speech means you can say anything with no reprisals, and yet if things are said that are found offensive to other groups reprisals are met, while the US law respects the right of free speech, elements within this country do not, look at the owner who was forced to sell off his team because of a (what he thought was private) conversation about his wife(ex?) going to games with a certain color group of people, was it offensive? perhaps, was it free speech? yes, did it have reprisals? hell yeah the NBA forced him to sell his team because of some morals clause.

I don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech. It means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for what you say, it does not in any way require that individuals refrain from reacting to speech they don't like. The NBA forcing the owner to sell his team is no different than you having a guest at your house and telling them to leave when they keep saying things you find offensive.

does free speech constitute bit, say if a guy decided to walk nude in front of school, would you object? even though this is his idea of free speech, to basically let it all hang out and show the world he has nothing to hide.

How exactly is walking around naked considered "speech"? Maybe you'd have a point if it was some kind of protest and had a clear message included, but you're really not understanding the concept of freedom of speech if you think that laws against public nudity violate your rights.

ok for starters, how would you feel if in a private conversation your having with someone you say something that is disparaging about someone else, then your friend tells your boss and he fires you?

as to Nudity being a form of free speech, believe it or not that has been shown to be a constitutional right as those in Berkley will admit, furthermore the supremem court has even said nude dancing in strip clubs is considered a form of free speech, but its all in how its presented, and very circumstantial, but on the other hand public nudity is permitted in Oregon as long as its not intended to arouse, and consider it a form of free speech.

furthermore free speech is not just the government, but for everyone, everyone has the right to their form of free speech, but not everyone is ridiculed for it.

furthermore what do you think free speech is all about? I'm thinking you don't quite grasp what free speech is all about.

**insaniak**

Peregrine wrote:

How exactly is walking around naked considered "speech"? .

He's conflating Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, which many people view as the same thing.

**Co'tor Shas**

Free speech and expression allows you to express yourself freely, it doesn't shield you from the consequences of your actions.

**Sigvatr**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Free speech and expression allows you to express yourself freely, it doesn't shield you from the consequences of your actions.

True. And it's not supposed to do so either - despite many people sadly thinking that their freedom of speech is violated if using it to frequently and openly hate on specific parts of the population.

**Asterios**

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech