Do you BELIEVE in Freedom of Speech?

[Zython]

Contrapoints has a great video series about free speech. Here's one where she basically argues that, in the context of societal pressure, as opposed to government coercion, "absolute free speech" is impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDhutW_us

[Jtbrig7390]

Which includes anything you say or post online, even bullying speech should be protected.

Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom of Consequences.

Also Freedom of Speech does not apply to private businesses or website's. All freedom of speech does is that it makes it so the government can't oppress your speech. If you yell fire in a theater or tell the president you are going to kill them you must accept the Consequences for your action.

[Backlashe]

Do I believe in Freedom of Speech as it actually exists: Not being prosecuted by the government for what you say (in a variety of forms)? Sure.

Do I believe in Freedom of Speech as a ton of people seem to think it means: I can say what I want without repercussion!!! Nope.

^ all this. Too many dumb kids think Freedom of Speech means you can just say whatever you want. That is not what it is. Want proof? Go into a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire!". See how fast you get arrested.

[Jtbrig7390]

Do I believe in Freedom of Speech as it actually exists: Not being prosecuted by the government for what you say (in a variety of forms)? Sure.

Do I believe in Freedom of Speech as a ton of people seem to think it means: I can say what I want without repercussion!!! Nope.

This 100%.

[Mormolyce]

Just to be clear, freedom of speech means specifically that the government cannot punish you for what you say. Either by throwing you in jail, fining you, etc.

It is not freedom from criticism, freedom from social consequences, or the right to access any platform.

They definition of freedom of speech:

free·dom of speech
noun
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

It is absolute. You do not believe in freedom of speech if you believe in censorship of any kind.

Thing is, the law does not operate from dictionary.com.

In practice even under the First Amendment, free speech IS limited. For example, in some cases, incitement.

[daenerys]

They definition of freedom of speech:

free·dom of speech
noun
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

It is absolute. You do not believe in freedom of speech if you believe in censorship of any kind.

- - - Updated - - -



free·dom of speech
noun
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Freedom of speech doesn't give someone the right to be heard. Freedom of speech just means that you can speak without government inferferance. You can't be arrested for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people have to give you a platform for your speech. Forums can ban you from their forums for any reason. Doesn't mean they're infringing on your freedom of speech. If you come to my house and try spouting crazy talk at me, I can slam the door in your face, I'm not stopping your freedom of speech, you can talk all you want, but I don't have to stay there and hear you. People can kick you out of their places of business/homes/websites without infringing on your freedom of speech. Keep talkng all you want, you won't get arrested, but you can't force anyone to give you a platform in order to speak in the name of freedom of speech.

[Belize]

I believe in Freedom From Speech.


... Some people need to shut the fuck up sometimes....

[Powerogue]

Too many people nowadays seem to want to censor types of speech they don't approve of and somehow don't realize that "freedom of speech for only speech I like" isn't freedom of speech. Sure it means you have to deal with often hateful perspectives you don't approve of, but when you find yourself on the other end of that coin, with a minority position that other people vehemently object to, you'll realize how important it is.

[primalmatter]

Yes to a near absolute extent.

Creditable threats and public disturbances in the extreme (such as yelling fire in a theater). Are the only limits I find acceptable.

[Zelk]

Nope. Never seen it. Doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

[Ghostpanther]

The way we do it in the US is fine with the exception I do not think we should be calling for or encouraging the execution of anyone. There has to be limitations to some extent to freedom of speech. Just like we do have limitations on some other Constitutional rights. Freedom of religion and the right to keep and bare arms would be a couple. Nether of those come with no limitations.

[Vankrys]

hate speech can be despicable, even dangerous.
But censorship, absence of freedom of speech is even more dangerous.

Who's to what is hate speech, and what is not? So in doubt, if i have to choose an extreme, i believe in freedom of speech, and i believe that anything can be say. That also mean that anything can be analyzed, refuted, debunked... speech fighting speech.


No Mr Trump, the media are not fake news, you may not like what they say, but they are exercising their freedom of speech and you cannot sue them. You can challenge their claim with your evidence, if you have some.

[Zubacz]

Yes. Definitely. I would say mostly the brainwashed left in Europe and in US thinks silencing someone can have a positive outcome.

If you believe something is racist, fascist or extremist in any way, publicise it, argue against it, ridicule it and let it be destroyed by reason in the minds of people. If I see an idea being silenced, I automatically assume the opposition of that idea has no arguments.

[Taso]

I belive in free speech so long as no physical harm is done. You want to write a book like the turner diaries or communist manifesto fine but if you actually attempt to do so as is described in both books then no you are not engaging in free speech you are abusing it for your own nefarious goals. You want to shout slogans such as don't tread on me, fine but don't go out of line and tread on someone else.

[Garnier Fructis]

I believe in freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequence.

If people sharply criticize what you say, well guess what. They're also exercising their freedom of speech, so man up and take it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Definitely. I would say mostly the brainwashed left in Europe and in US thinks silencing someone can have a positive outcome.

If you believe something is racist, fascist or extremist in any way, publicise it, argue against it, ridicule it and let it be destroyed by reason in the minds of people. If I see an idea being silenced, I automatically assume the opposition of that idea has no arguments.

Help me out here, because crybabies on this forum call it silencing when their ideas get mercilessly ridiculed, so what's the difference between ridicule and silence?

[Very Tired]

The thing is, the founding fathers gave us freedom of speech with the desire that it be used to protect people such as those working in the media to do things like print criticisms of their Government.

But now days people just seem to use it as a convenient shield to see how much of a dick they can be to other people. Other than that, it's mostly used by people incorrectly claiming free speech in matters that literally have nothing to do with the government at all.

[kail]

Yes, but at the government level. I don't believe it should ever extended to private entities. Be it someone'es home or an organization's website, owners should maintain their right to control what get's said or posted. Insult the owner at his/her home, prepare to be thrown out. Say something against the ToS in Twitter, prepare to face bans.

Also the basic limitations like yelling "fire" to cause a panic or posting slander against someone should be maintained as well.

[Crispin]

Well yes, but slander etc. obviously shouldnt be protected by freedom of speech, also people using freedom of speech as an excuse to share their retarded brainfarts with others is a pain in the ass.

[Deleted]

Freedom of speech is quite misunderstood today.

Today we have the right to express ourselves through whichever form we choose, with a message we want. But we are still accountable for all the laws we might infringe upon.
Thus we have a freedom to get persecuted in a court of law.

I would like to have a bigger leash on what is allowed to be said, as long as you can back up things up, then you should be able to discuss race, religion and sexes much more openly. Right now it is too easy to just pull out the racism card for nothing. The only thing that you should be protected against is personal threats to your physical well-being (making you cry doesn't count), slander without proof and the right for personal privacy unless there is suspicion you are breaking a felony.

Or put very short. You should have the right to say things that might offend people, but not if that includes bodily harm.

[Freighter]

They definition of freedom of speech:

free·dom of speech
noun
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

It is absolute. You do not believe in freedom of speech if you believe in censorship of any kind.

- - - Updated - - -



free·dom of speech
noun
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Then no country has freedom of speech in present time.