Freedom of Speech
I had meant to post this a week or two ago, when it was more topical, but anyway:
A week or two ago, there was a (failed) shooting at a Draw Muhammad contest in Texas and it engendered a conversation on freedom of speech. I don't want to talk about that incident or similar ones, especially as too often those advocating 'freedom of speech' seemed too often to be confusing 'you shouldn't say that' with 'you shouldn't be able to say that.' What I really do want to talk about is things such as hate speech legislation, or laws against holocaust denial that exist in a lot of European countries. Some countries (including the US historically) also have laws against sedition or even flag burning.
To start off, I'll say I'm pretty radical in terms of freedom of speech - that's to say I follow the precident set by the US Supreme Court. Freedom of speech extents to even horrible ideologies such as the KKK or Neo-Nazis. Hustler printed a fake alcohol advertisement with Jerry Falwell talking about his first time having sex - namely getting drunk and having sex with his mother. The Supreme Court ruled it was not defamatory speech, since no rational person would think it was true. It's more complicated, but in essence, US precident is 'a clear and present danger' - namely the famous shouting fire in a crowded theatre or yellling a storeowner is a cheat in front of an angry mob. The US certainly isn't completely liberal, especially since 9/11. There were the 'Free Speech Zones' at the 2004 DNC, protestors are limited in how close to a funeral or an abortion clinic they can be.
Even the liberal precident of 'a clear and present danger' can be worrisome in the present - if anybody remembers the killing of Dr. Tiller in his abortion clinic or the shooting of a congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona, a lot of people blamed prominent right wing politicians and media figures for the attacks. In the internet age, the idea is 'you don't know what sort of terrorist or psychopath is reading.' If that ever becomes legal precident (ie, if internet speech is considered 'clear and present), that would allow for a whole array of censorship; all that would be necessary is arguing speech is potentially dangerous to the slightest hair trigger.
While this might be biting off too bit a topic, there is also the question of obscenity, which boils down to 'fuck' - saying it or showing it. On the one hand, there's Carlin's Seven Words, and on the other, there is pornography. You still can't say 'fuck' during primetime without getting a fine (not just letters), and, to my knowledge, simulated rape pornography is illegal in the UK, and even certain kinds of cartoon pornography are illegal in otherwise liberal countries.
TL:DR What do you think the limits on freedom of speech should be? I'm specifically talking about what sort of speech should be illegal, not simply things that shouldn't said in decent society.
Comments
No limits at all, once you start censoring people thoughts and opinions its just a dictatorship. Its already the case really.
You'd have it such that no-one can ever be reprimanded by the law for something they say?
What would your punishment be for a verbal utterance directed at no individual person?
If, in my town, I know a baker, and lie and say that the baker is cutting corners by using sewer water while cooking, and present information about how toxic the sewer water is (without proving the baker used the water), and the rumors put the baker out of business, shouldn't I be liable?
Edit: just read 'at no individual person,' that is a huge qualifier, and what is or is not said to/about that individual is where a lot of (most) potential laws come into play. "No limits at all" and "at no individual person," is a huge difference.
I....what? What are you on about? (i'm not trying to be rude I am really confused by your point)
I have no idea when thinking freedom of speech is a good thing suddenly became bad. Its probably one of the greatest freedoms the modern world has, small changes people want implemented will lead to big changes down the road.
Your post, as the fundamentals of freedom of speech, says nothing about individual people. Yo say if you censor peoples thoughs and opinion its just a dictatorship.
If someone is accused of manslaughter for telling someone they think they should kill themelves, should they be compeltely and utterly protected by the law?
Many people guilty of harassment defend themselves with free speech.
My example was about laws against slander.
I agree, freedom of speech is an excellent and a pillar of liberal democracy. But there is certain speech where it serves no political good to protect against banning screaming fire in a crowded theatre. Or, for instance, public release of classified information.
PS: sorry to be double teaming you here...
But harrasment is full blown verbal attacks on a single person often repeated and would apply to stalking or assault charges, thats my definition of harassment anyway. Thats different to having freedom of opinion surely?
In what context? Assisted suicide is a crime, bullying is a crime which encouraging to commit suicide certainly is if its done with negative intention (or intention at all)
Thats usually career based, really. I mean the individual agrees not to divulge the information they are breaking the law sharing such information. Though personally "whistle blowers" are usually seen in a positive light and with good reason a lot of the time. Its not the persons free opinion either its freedom of informtion or freedom of the press which isnt entirely needed either freedom of privacy is just as important. Freedom of speech doesnt come into that I dont think
I just think censorship is totally dictated by current standards, standards change constantly, if censorship was applied years ago no progress would be made if you think about it, Religious censorship likely limited scientific growth by decades
I actually think your example is a pretty rough example. I'd say they are protected. How many people have said 'go kill yourself,' on the internet? If somebody ends up doing it, should they be liable? If you see somebody standing on a bridge, about to jump off, the equation changes. If the statement is persistent and not easily avoided, it should qualify as harrassment.
"harrasment is full blown verbal attacks"
Ah but 'its my opinion and i have the right to express it if i want! Freedom of speech!!'
um..yeah. Of course it's different. Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech are compeltely different things. One is the right to have an opinion. The other is the right to express it however you wish.
In the context of bullying. Why should that be a crime if any restriction of freedom of speech is a bad thing? That would be punishing them for expressing their opinions.
Do you see why we need limits to freedom of expression, and why having some limits is not equivalent to a dictatorship?
If you see someone standing on a bridge, and it is your opinion that they should kill themselves, and you tell them to, then you would be accused of manslaughter. That is a limit of freedom of speech.
We need limits on freedom of speech.
So the person is stood on the bridge about to jump and a person tells them to and that makes them guilty for their death? Not that anyone would do that anyway, they are kind of correct when you use the literal most extreme thing you can think of.
When on earth would that happen?
Thats a distinction i've never heard before
Why does any debate with you turn into a massive "ha ha lol i'm imitating you" its pretty insulting to act so superior.
Also honestly yes thats freedom of speech, I'm not sure what your definition of harassment actually is? Because again in the way I'm thinking it would come under other offenses that currently exist. Harrasment is a crime in itself, because its more than freedom of speech its abuse directed at one individual over time
..Really? Well can't you just your own logic to distinguish them? I mean, it's pretty obvious that 'speech' is a compeltely different thing to 'opinion' so why would you assume freedom of one is the same as freedom of the other?
I wasn't imitating you, I was imitating how people defend themselves in court by using a freedom of speech argument.
I'm more interested in what you actully think freedom of speech is. Because it can't be the freedom to say whatever you want, as harassment laws mean that isn't possible.
Harassment laws mean that you cant say something if it causes significant damage to someone else. Is that freedom of speech in your opinion? Or is that symptomatic of a totalitarian dictatorial regime?
Im talking about future implementations on freedom of speech, which people seem to want. That was the point of the thread.
To compare how would you limit implementations? Dont get me wrong some instances where it would be better to not hear the opinion but when would it stop and more importantly how?
Lets say your impersonation offended me (it didnt) should your comment be censored you verbally assaulted and mocked me. If not then how would you manage this?
And again as you didnt answer what should the punishment for an offense be?
People like to think that freedom of speech is their own personal reason for not being held accountable for their words. Say, do, wear what you want as long as it doesn't fringe on anyone else's freedoms.
In other words, be aware that your actions have consequences.
Yo said:
Do you regard harassment laws as a form of dictatorship, then?
Harassment laws have existed for decades without the world coming to an end.
And again as you didnt answer what should the punishment for an offense be?
None of those are relevant to what I'm saying?
I'm saying that, right now, we already limit freedom of speech. Im not proposing anything about the future at all.
Partially guilty, yes. Totally guilty, no.
Hence 'manslaughter', not murder.
I was giving an example of how it's limited by the law. This is one way in which the law courts restrict freedom of speech, as they should.
Harrasment laws are fine, and frankly when I think of freedom of speech I dont think of harrasment, I meant more about how more changes are being made to what consitutrues harrasment or offensive behaviour which results in consequences. If freedom of opinion is the correct term (I'm still not seeing the difference, freedom of speech is not freedom to act on your speech).
And to expand yes I can see the benefits in some situations of censoring hate speech however my main issue is what is the limit and again how is it enforced?
I'm not sure to what rate you consider something "harrasment".
Anyway my point was more to any future or current laws that prevent what people want to think or say which is kind of the idea of the thread, I know you favour more strict censorship (even on a internet forum level) so to expand how would you regulate this new implementation and what would the punishment be for it etc.
And fine some censorship doesnt equal dictatorship, if that gets you to stop quoting that. I meant that it can quickly turn into that when it snowballs which it could easily do.
People need to understand that the freedom to speak freely is not and should never be an excuse to behave irresponsibly, nor to be used as an excuse to not be held liable for their behaviour. Rights are there to protect everyone's freedom and security, not just yours. In a democratic society and according to section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone should have the right to free speech, as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights or freedoms. Peaceful protest is allowed, but hate-speech of a person or group of people is a crime and should be illegal.
The only time it really should be limited if it causes death or destruction.
There is no such thing as freedom as speech, you have the right to say whatever you want, but then also be able to foresee the consequences of such actions. People will look at you, whatever you say under a microscope, then make their own judgements on you. Then it all comes full circle.