What is free speech?

[bradly1101]

I've always heard that you have the right to say anything you want except things like yelling "fire!" in a movie theater that isn't on fire. Why? This speech could harm people and be bad for business.

Threats are made almost anywhere at anyone at some point, and does 'free speech' extend to these threats? In France just a couple of days after a huge rally in favor of free speech, over fifty people were arrested for hate speech toward Jews and verbal support for terrorism. European countries have strict anti-hate laws since the holocaust, but what about the anti-Muslim hate speech in Charlie Hebdo?

If an American converts to Islam, moves to the middle east and starts posting threats to the U.S. on Facebook, it's likely a drone will be sent to get him. We call that 'incitement'. Does Charlie Hebdo incite anti Muslim sentiment?

What do we have the right to say? "Muslims are ..." gets a pass while "Jews are..." is condemned. Should we be free to say whatever we want in these areas?

 

[cbrunny]

freedom of speech /= freedom from consequences

/thread

 

[Knowing]

Free speech exists to protect speech that is offensive. Who would move to ban speech that didn't hurt anyone's delicate sensibilities? Awlaki allegedly wasn't killed for youtube videos, but rather for allegedly organizing terrorist attacks. I say allegedly because there was no day in court. This represents a stark departure from hundreds of years of jurisprudence regarding "due process." The only forms of speech that shouldn't be protected are libel, slander, and inciting.

If anyone wishes to preserve the antiquated establishment known as equality, there is no reason that anyone should not be able to say or write what hipster whites with audaciously dyed hair and non-prescription glasses say about whites about any other phenotype on earth.

Regarding freedom from consequences... the whole idea of free speech is that the government doesn't enforce those consequences. So the fact that they were arrested for hate speech puts it squarely in the free speech arena.

 

[z1ggy]

These days... Who knows what free speech is anymore.

 

[bradly1101]

freedom of speech /= freedom from consequences

/thread

Then what does the 'free' in free speech mean?

 

[bradly1101]

Free speech exists to protect speech that is offensive. Who would move to ban speech that didn't hurt anyone's delicate sensibilities? Awlaki allegedly wasn't killed for youtube videos, but rather for allegedly organizing terrorist attacks. I say allegedly because there was no day in court. This represents a stark departure from hundreds of years of jurisprudence regarding "due process." The only forms of speech that shouldn't be protected are libel, slander, and inciting.

If anyone wishes to preserve the antiquated establishment known as equality, there is no reason that anyone should not be able to say or write what hipster whites with audaciously dyed hair and non-prescription glasses say about whites about any other phenotype on earth.

Regarding freedom from consequences... the whole idea of free speech is that the government doesn't enforce those consequences. So the fact that they were arrested for hate speech puts it squarely in the free speech arena.

Equality may be antiquated but shouldn't it also be something we aspire to?

 

[shira]

There's a difference between advocating violent acts (which is NOT protected speech) and expressing an opinion that doesn't advocate violence, but which nevertheless upsets people and results in their being violent.

Similarly, threatening someone in such a way that they reasonably fear for their physical wellbeing is NOT protected speech. Also not protected is knowingly making false statements that you reasonably expect others will act on, leading to dangerous or destructive consequences.

Slander and Libel (respectively, speaking and writing something you know to be false and that damages someone's reputation) is not protected. Neither is lying to law enforcement officials and thereby impeding their investigations nor lying under oath.

But there's a difference between having a right to express something and whether it's prudent to do so.

 

[Rebel_L]

For me the idea of free speech is the that speech (perhaps "ideas" is almost a better fit) in and of itself can not be considered a crime. Speech (or ideas) however can cause action to happen, and you can still be held to some accountability for the actions that happen as a result of your speech.

 

[Knowing]

Equality may be antiquated but shouldn't it also be something we aspire to?

Equality under the law is the only equality we should aspire to. Any other forms of equality will be eternally stymied by the actions of individuals. I don't expect anyone to start demanding that women be 50% of workplace fatalities for instance. Efforts taken to enforce other sorts of equality tend to have incredible moving goal posts and essentially become an endless pit of public funding and rhetoric. Hate crime legislation is no different.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Free speech is whatever those who have power over you say it is.

 

[piasabird]

Freedom of speech is a good topic. There was a president that put people in jail that tried to be his political rivals. So one very important aspect of freedom of speech is protection against a government that would try to control people by limiting any criticism of how they are running the government.

One other important freedom is the right to practice any religion you choose as long as it does not harm others or break other key laws like murder, torture, and freedom of speech. One reason people came to the USA was so they could practice the religion of their choice. This is because in other countries often there was a state recognized religion and anyone that went against that could be prosecuted, burned at the stake for heresy or possibly burned at the stake as a witch for being different. These are all things we have done here in America, so we have our own sad history to look at.

On the other hand we do have laws about telling lies to ruin a person's reputation. However, everyone has to defend their rights to keep them. Just because someone says something you don't like, it does not mean you have the right to commit murder, riot, steal, and burn down buildings and overturn cars.

Inciting a riot is very hard to prove. Is a governor guilty of inciting a riot if he verbally attacks the police or demands they be charged with crimes, and then minorities burn most of the city down?

 

[piasabird]

What about an American Jew that makes a film critical of Islamic Terrorists? President Obama had him thrown in jail.

What is the difference between what he did and what these supposed journalists did in France?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Today, the claim of what is free speech is like when a soccer player gets 'hurt' on the field. Someone bumps into them, and then they double over as if their spleen was ripped out by the other person,.. with a rusty spoon,.. as they are being kicked in the crotch.

It's just flat out insane what people label as freedom of speech.

Personally, I would like to see people say whatever they wanted. Want to call someone the N word? Say it. Want to declare how black people deserved to be slaves? Say it. Want to declare all Muslims should be wiped out? Say it.

The issue here, in all of these things I just listed, is not the people who flip out and react to all of these things,.. but, the person who said these, then says; "Wha, wha ah do? It's freedom of speech!!".

No. It's not. It's hateful speech.

Similarly to how the soccer player pretends they are hurt - the hate spewer pretends they are exercising their freedom of speech. When called out on it, they double over and pretend they have had their rights violated.

And, again, I wish people were honest. I wish they would flat out say what they want to say. But, they are cowards to face the consequences of their words and they hide behind freedom of speech. They cry about people abusing their right to freedom of speech, but they themselves are abusing said right, by using it to cover their hate.

Further more, they then tell you to shut the fuck up for reacting to their hatespeak freedom of speech - which further proves how they are just out to spew hate and then manipulate the truth.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What about an American Jew that makes a film critical of Islamic Terrorists? President Obama had him thrown in jail.

What is the difference between what he did and what these supposed journalists did in France?

A) He went to jail because he violated his parole while he was on probation for bank fraud, not for making the film.

B) fyi, He isn't an American Jew, he's an Egyptian Coptic Christian.

 

[BoberFett]

Today, the claim of what is free speech is like when a soccer player gets 'hurt' on the field. Someone bumps into them, and then they double over as if their spleen was ripped out by the other person,.. with a rusty spoon,.. as they are being kicked in the crotch.

It's just flat out insane what people label as freedom of speech.

Personally, I would like to see people say whatever they wanted. Want to call someone the N word? Say it. Want to declare how black people deserved to be slaves? Say it. Want to declare all Muslims should be wiped out? Say it.

The issue here, in all of these things I just listed, is not the people who flip out and react to all of these things,.. but, the person who said these, then says; "Wha, wha ah do? It's freedom of speech!!".

No. It's not. It's hateful speech.

Similarly to how the soccer player pretends they are hurt - the hate spewer pretends they are exercising their freedom of speech. When called out on it, they double over and pretend they have had their rights violated.

And, again, I wish people were honest. I wish they would flat out say what they want to say. But, they are cowards to face the consequences of their words and they hide behind freedom of speech. They cry about people abusing their right to freedom of speech, but they themselves are abusing said right, by using it to cover their hate.

Further more, they then tell you to shut the fuck up for reacting to their hatespeak freedom of speech - which further proves how they are just out to spew hate and then manipulate the truth.

There's hateful things said about Republicans on this forum all the time.

We should probably eliminate such hate speech, it's irresponsible to let it continue.

Only nice things can be said about Republicans and the Koch Brothers from here on out.

 

[nickqt]

Free speech means that the government cannot punish you for your speech or ideas as long as they are protected.

Protected speech examples would be criticism of the government or criticizing a politician.

Speech that is likely to provoke violence or cause harm is not protected, such as yelling "fire" in a theatre, or making a death threat against someone.

The arguments arise from everything inbetween.

Note: you don't lose free speech because your boss fires you for saying he/she is an idiot, or for having your forum post removed. The government hasn't punished you or prohibited you from saying something.

Most people don't quite understand that the First Amendment and Free Speech is a right of an individual against the government. Another example is that if you are in my house and say something I don't like, I have every right to kick you out of my house.

 

[Vic]

"... the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions... " - Thomas Jefferson

 

[master_shake_]

free speech means you can say whatever you want.

but people don't have to listen.

 

[cubby1223]

Free speech is whatever those who have power over you say it is.

Yup!


Oh, and to the "fire" in a theater line everyone says... it doesn't actually cause a panic. Couple years ago while watching a movie, the firealarms went off at the theater. Nobody moved. Everyone wanted to stay in their seat and the movie put back on play. Eventually everyone left... at a snail's pace.

 

[cubby1223]

There's a difference between advocating violent acts (which is NOT protected speech) and expressing an opinion that doesn't advocate violence, but which nevertheless upsets people and results in their being violent.

Similarly, threatening someone in such a way that they reasonably fear for their physical wellbeing is NOT protected speech. Also not protected is knowingly making false statements that you reasonably expect others will act on, leading to dangerous or destructive consequences.

Slander and Libel (respectively, speaking and writing something you know to be false and that damages someone's reputation) is not protected. Neither is lying to law enforcement officials and thereby impeding their investigations nor lying under oath.

But there's a difference between having a right to express something and whether it's prudent to do so.

What you're saying is there is a whole lot of subjectivity to free speech that someone in power needs to decide on a case by case basis on whether the speech is protected or prosecuted.

And let's just be clear, pretty much everyone who has expressed an opinion on the internet has at one time advocated a violent act against another person. Lots of subjectivity going on. One person's opinion is another person's advocacy. Is there a technicality if one person says die in a fire, versus another who says it is my opinion the world will be a better place if you would kindly die in a fire?

You are also making the distinction that while physical violence against another is wrong, psychological violence is protected free speech.

Either it's all free, or as Hayabusa put it, what's "free" and what's not is arbitrarily declared by others with the power to punish you. There are no clear-cut, objective definitions and boundaries of what's okay and what's not. By your statement, J.D. Salinger might be in trouble with the law, while he wasn't advocating violence someone might make the argument his expressions of speech caused a few people to do some violently bad things. Does Al Sharpton bear some legal blame of the Ferguson riots for remarks he made? There are a lot of distinctions that don't fit the general mold.

 

[piasabird]

Since Coptic Christians are constantly being murdered by people who claim to be Muslims, I could understand his valid hatred of Muslims. It is a matter of survival. He was persecuted for his religion and Muslims tend to freely commit acts of Genocide against non-Muslims, or any Muslim they don't agree with. My opinion is that he was put in jail as a political prisoner.

 

[Sonikku]

Free speech is what I have and what the people I dislike shouldn't have.

 

[mizzou]

No such thing as "free" speech. All speech comes at a price.

 

[Newell Steamer]

There's hateful things said about Republicans on this forum all the time.

We should probably eliminate such hate speech, it's irresponsible to let it continue.

Only nice things can be said about Republicans and the Koch Brothers from here on out.

And what are the results of these hateful things that are said about Republicans and the Koch Brothers?

Do we want to make Republicans our slaves? Do we demand Republicans have lesser rights than anyone else? Do we demand Republicans be rounded up and shipped out of the country?

Nope.

I certainly state they are defective in their thinking (since they are always wrought with fear) - but, even then, they don't deserve to die or be punished for that.

Whereas most of the hatespeech against the 'enemies' of the conservative camp is coupled with some inhumane or unrealistic expectation of how the persons they are hating on should act or be treated. There isn't anything said that would remedy the behavior of the person they hate,... they just want to harm and hurt them.

 

[BoberFett]

And what are the results of these hateful things that are said about Republicans and the Koch Brothers?

Do we want to make Republicans our slaves? Do we demand Republicans have lesser rights than anyone else? Do we demand Republicans be rounded up and shipped out of the country?

Nope.

I certainly state they are defective in their thinking (since they are always wrought with fear) - but, even then, they don't deserve to die or be punished for that.

Whereas most of the hatespeech against the 'enemies' of the conservative camp is coupled with some inhumane or unrealistic expectation of how the persons they are hating on should act or be treated. There isn't anything said that would remedy the behavior of the person they hate,... they just want to harm and hurt them.

I'm just saying, to avoid violence you should stop insulting Republicans. I don't condone violence, but I understand if a one or two of them snapped and came after you.