What's worse: freedom of speech or controlling of freedom of speech

[Arewn]

Absolutely control is worse then free speech.

People who think control is better only think so because they think they are above having their own speech controlled. They're not, and such controlled can very easily be used to silence legitimate dissent.


Keep in mind I am talking about freedom of speech, which does have caveats.

[Endus]

What's the "rest of the world" definition then ? Would love to read your pointless semantic arguing (actually not)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Just as a for-instance, here's a ranking of press freedom around the world; https://rsf.org/en/ranking

The USA is not the top, there.

Freedom of speech is not a binary concept, where it is either "true" or "false" and where the USA is mythically the only one where it's "true". That's just nonsense and demonstrates a failure to grasp the concept, not to mention blind nationalism.

[Forogil]

You missed the point. I explained "freedom of speech".

Most countries, including european one, don't pretend to have freedom of speech. You can't be openly racist or antisemite in Europe, you will be prosecuted. And that's fine.

On the contrary, almost everyone pretends to have freedom of speech.

It's part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, the EU's charter on human rights, and even the Arab Charter of Human Rights tries to have that.

But most agree that some form of speech isn't protected - like defamation, sex, hate-speech; while still pretending to be in favor of freedom of speech. Some are more lenient and some pretend more.

The European were actually the first adding such laws - and contrary to what some might think the US didn't amend the constitution to actually guarantee freedom of speech until after the civil war.

[NicoWolf]

This is actually a really good question.

So let's start with this statement:

Not controlling it is worse than controlling it.

Scenario: A school begins reporting that 2+2=5. They launch a webpage, polls, comment sections, etc, and filter comments, poll results, and the webpage to present a favorable view of the concept. In this scenario, speech is being both controlled AND not controlled.

Scenario: A school begins reporting that 2+2=4. They launch a webpage, polls, comment sections, etc, and filter comments, poll results, and the webpage to present a favorable view of the concept. In this scenario, speech is being both controlled AND not controlled.

This is why Freighter's statement is both uninformed and grossly flawed. Controlled speech is inherently dangerous because a lie can be pushed by an authority and that authority can suppress facts that exist in direct opposition to the lie.

[bowchikabow]

There is no asterisk next to the first amendment. It is one or the other: Free Speech, or no Free Speech.

Also, as a reminder: The Supreme Court has officially affirmed that hate speech is still free speech! This is the most important thing to remember. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean people are free to say the things you like. It means they are free to say the things that they do.. ESPECIALLY if you don't like it. That is whole point of it being a constitutional freedom!

"A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

[NicoWolf]

There is no asterisk next to the first amendment. It is one or the other: Free Speech, or no Free Speech.

Also, as a reminder: The Supreme Court has officially affirmed that hate speech is still free speech! This is the most important thing to remember. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean people are free to say the things you like. It means they are free to say the things that they do.. ESPECIALLY if you don't like it. That is whole point of it being a constitutional freedom!

"A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

I'd like to further this by saying that "hate speech" is defined by subjective measures with little or no basis in fact and asserting a dissenting opinion is not hateful, no matter how offended people might get. My right to express my opinion does not end where your feelings begin.

[spanishninja]

Speech leads to actions which leads to conflicts.

this is a danger in societies where people can't responsibly exercise free speech. Maybe western society is such a place nowadays, which is pretty sad.

[Deleted]

But what if one uses their freedom of speech to control freedom of speech?

[bowchikabow]

Speech leads to actions which leads to conflicts.

Which means what Kathy Griffin did, helped incite the attempted massacre at the congressional baseball game? Speech is speech. It is people who turn it into action. Speech leads to violence in the same way alcohol leads to sex.

[PC2]

But what if one uses their freedom of speech to control freedom of speech?

As in they are saying someone else must be silenced?

If it's something like constant screaming or blowhorning that is obviously flooding the airwaves which is anti-speech.

[spanishninja]

Controlling speech, which all nations and governments do to one degree or another, is different than having no speech.

Also, only a government has an obligation to uphold the right to freedom of expression. As the OP examples, there is no benefit (and very, very few allow such) to a non-government entity allowing for others to control the narrative.

I don't think anybody is arguing that controlling speech results in no speech. It just results in all speech being meaningless because they do not necessarily reflect what people are actually thinking.

[Deleted]

As in they are saying someone else must be silenced?

If it's something like constant screaming or blowhorning that is obviously flooding the airwaves which is anti-speech.

Pretty much yeah. I find it an interesting paradigm, because we supposedly also have to accept the notion of those wanting to limit it, since it falls under the concept of free speech.

Never heard about anti-speech, but I kind of like the term

[Pengekaer]

Having the freedom to speak > Hurt feelings.

Don't like what somebody says? Argue against it or ignore it.

Don't silence it because you are too fragile to argue back.

I agree.

"Controlling" freedom of speech is a way of catering to the stupid, the inferior and the and the hypersensitives.
That some central state power should decide what I can and can't say is a concept from the Middle Ages (like, literally) that has no place in today's world.

[Machismo]

The limiting of the freedom of speech is much worse. Seriously, it's not even close. I'd much rather have some racist asshole yell obscenities at me, than have a police officer shoot me in the face, because I decided to say our government was too authoritarian.

[Trassk]

Denying freedom of speech is denying truth coming out along with bullshit, and I'd sooner live in a world where truth can come out instead of it being locked down by government.

[spanishninja]

I agree.

"Controlling" freedom of speech is a way of catering to the stupid, the inferior and the and the hypersensitives.
That some central state power should decide what I can and can't say is a concept from the Middle Ages (like, literally) that has no place in today's world.

And more importantly, it suppresses debate.

[Pengekaer]

People no longer understand what freedom of speech is. They want to see THEIR speech, and the speech of those they agree with, privileged above all others.

When you bemoan people calling others "racists" or "bigots" or what have you for their comments, you are not defending free speech. You are attacking the free speech of all those you disagree with.

You got this wrong; the majority of conservative people don't bemoan being called racists or bigots for saying obviously true stuff, like north african and middle eastern migrants being massively (to the point of ridiculously) overrepresented in gang crime. They are, for the most time, just slightly amused that after all these years, that's usually the toughest argument coming their way.. ;-)
We're not bemoaning too much at all, to be honest. In fact, we conservatives around here rather rejoice these years as our movement has been strongly reinvigorated as of lately while the left and the social democrats will soon be reduced and marginalized. ;-) However, us conservatives will not limit freedom of speech, not even for the left. As a matter of fact, we work to abolish the racism and blasphemy-paragraphs, which are currently the only restrictions to free speech in Denmark bar the threat of violence ;-)

IF I were to bemoan an injustice where I live, regarding freedom of speech, then it would be the story about a 42 year old guy was sentenced to a fine for burning a Quaran in a facebook-vid, while our national television station (DR) burned a bible in 1997 in an artshow claiming it was an artistic piece. We have the same blashpemy-laws today as in 1997, yet the television station never received much but applause for their little event. No legal penalty.
That's the sort of stuff conservatives like me bemoan; unequal treatment under the law.
Here's the thing: I don't trust my court-system to be objective when it comes to Islam, and I will not stop bemoaning that anytime soon.

[Trassk]

And more importantly, it suppresses debate.

kinda like on some forums *cough cough*

[Pengekaer]

And more importantly, it suppresses debate.

It is only natural that a large state, which by law owns most of the resident's money, will also naturally start believing that it owns the tongues of its subjects. And acting like it.

That is what is so fundamentally different between the US and Europa, they have freedom of speech (bar threats of violence) protected under the Constitution. Most of Europa is not so lucky.

[Forogil]

You got this wrong; the majority of conservative people don't bemoan being called racists or bigots for saying obviously true stuff, like north african and middle eastern migrants being massively (to the point of ridiculously) overrepresented in gang crime. They are, for the most time, just slightly amused that after all these years, that's usually the toughest argument coming their way.. ;-)
We're not bemoaning much at all, to be honest.

IF I were to bemoan an injustice where I live, regarding freedom of speech, then it would be the story about a 42 year old guy was sentenced to a fine for burning a Quaran in a facebook-vid, while our national television station (DR) burned a bible in 1997 in an artshow claiming it was an artistic piece. We have the same blashpemy-laws today as in 1997, yet the television station never received much but applause for their little event. No legal penalty.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7771041.html claim that a Danish 42-year old was freed from that crime after the law was removed.

Obviously it could wrong, or it could be another case with another 42-year old, but then I wonder what makes 42-years old so prone to setting Qurans on fire.