What Is Freedom Of Speech?

[GennGreymane]

(The title does not have my running joke of GGT because there are no news articles that spawned this, but rather just a thought)

Over the internet I seem to have discovered that very few people seem to understand what freedom of speech is. To my knowledge/opinion, it simply means that the government cannot censor or arrest because of thoughts/ideas (at least in the U.S with limited exceptions). There are of course exceptions, but they tend to be pretty minor. Most of the exceptions tend to be civil rather than criminal matters (in the U.S). Other exceptions tend to be purely societal, where no law exists against it in either civil or criminal matters, but people do not do it anyway.

What are your thoughts?

[Deleted]

There's no 100% freedom of speech and never should be

[JohnBrown1917]

A better way to put it, is that the government is the only entity that is not allowed to censor speech/content by law(with a few execptions aside, such as blackmail, and harmfull material such as CP).


Freedom of speech however is that, freedom of speech. 8chan is not the government, but it does allow complete freedom of speech(unless it breaks the US law).
Anybody can enforce freedom of speech in his/her site, company, building or whatever.

[Cosmic Janitor]

(The title does not have my running joke of GGT because there are no news articles that spawned this, but rather just a thought)

Over the internet I seem to have discovered that very few people seem to understand what freedom of speech is. To my knowledge/opinion, it simply means that the government cannot censor or arrest because of thoughts/ideas (at least in the U.S with limited exceptions). There are of course exceptions, but they tend to be pretty minor. Most of the exceptions tend to be civil rather than criminal matters (in the U.S). Other exceptions tend to be purely societal, where no law exists against it in either civil or criminal matters, but people do not do it anyway.

What are your thoughts?

It's what you said. It's about the govt. censoring you, though I would extend it to private organisations, interest and lobby groups working for the govt.

[Deathpath]

i hate how people think hate speech isnt free speech. its a two way street, you take the good with the bad and you should never be arrested and detained for any kind of speech. defamation is another case because its in between private citizens but some one shouldn't be put in jail for just words.

[Deleted]

This world ain't free my friend. You only get apparent freedom. Of course you can act as you want, speak what you want, but if you break the law or happen to be inconvinient or just piss off someone who have power = you'll be silenced or just meet the 'justice'.

[Deleted]

i hate how people think hate speech isnt free speech. its a two way street, you take the good with the bad and you should never be arrested and detained for any kind of speech. defamation is another case because its in between private citizens but some one shouldn't be put in jail for just words.

Threats of physical violence is illegal so is harassment

[breadisfunny]

Threats of physical violence is illegal so is harassment

hate speech is not threats of physical violence. it is expressing ones dislike of another. learn the difference.

[Mentia]

hate speech is not threats of physical violence. it is expressing ones dislike of another. learn the difference.

I don't see where he said they were the same.

[Deathpath]

Threats of physical violence is illegal so is harassment

people threaten violence everyday but a small percent is actually carried out. until the person trespasses on said victims property, committed a physical crime or harmed said victim they shouldn't be detained. its easy to send out threats but harder to carry out and if the person is contently harassed then it becomes something different.

[GennGreymane]

people threaten violence everyday but a small percent is actually carried out. until the person trespasses on said victims property, committed a physical crime or harmed said victim they shouldn't be detained. its easy to send out threats but harder to carry out and if the person is contently harassed then it becomes something different.

for a death threat to get someone into trouble, its gotta be proven to be beyond the normal YOU BASTARD! ILL GET YA! type of deal

[iperson]

People are schizophrenic when it comes to free speech. I think that on the internet many people are speaking of the principles of "free speech" when it comes up and not necessarily constitutional protections from government over reach. For instance, most people believe that censorship at its core is wrong. Groups who would burn books for example are disdained because as a culture we value free thought and expression. Of course how pedantic you are probably depends on where you fall in the current argument. If for instance you read an article about a company firing an employee for donating to a pro abortion rights political campaign then for some reason people who might normally spend all their time trying to correct others to the proper use fall silent when it's misused.

[Mentia]

people threaten violence everyday but a small percent is actually carried out. until the person trespasses on said victims property, committed a physical crime or harmed said victim they shouldn't be detained. its easy to send out threats but harder to carry out and if the person is contently harassed then it becomes something different.

for a death threat to get someone into trouble, its gotta be proven to be beyond the normal YOU BASTARD! ILL GET YA! type of deal

Wrong.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...al-Threats.htm

[shadowmouse]

Freedom of speech is:

1) An unspecified ideal;
2) A right subject to the limits and guarantees of the US Constitution.

It is the give and take between the two that causes confusion.

[Deleted]

hate speech is not threats of physical violence. it is expressing ones dislike of another. learn the difference.

Never said it was o.O simply citing 'words between individuals' that's illegal

[Elim Garak]

I could've demonstrated you what is the true freedom of speech - but I would get infracted.

[Independent voter]

When the Supreme Court in the US rules on Free Speech, they always put it in context of political speech.

A case was brought before them where a porn producer wrote about a religious leader, saying that the preacher had sex with his mom in an outhouse. The Supremes ruled that if they were to restrict the hateful speech of the porn guy, it could be applied to someone who wrote something scathing about a politician. They do the slippery slope thing all the time.

Later a man wielding a shotgun shot the porn producer in the stomach, paralyzing him. He now poops in a bag tied to his belt.

[GennGreymane]

Wrong.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...al-Threats.htm

thank you for proving our points, while at the same time calling us wrong

You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you in time, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real.

- - - Updated - - -

I could've demonstrated you what is the true freedom of speech - but I would get infracted.

By the government of the nation you reside in?!?!?!?!

[Wildtree]

(The title does not have my running joke of GGT because there are no news articles that spawned this, but rather just a thought)

Over the internet I seem to have discovered that very few people seem to understand what freedom of speech is. To my knowledge/opinion, it simply means that the government cannot censor or arrest because of thoughts/ideas (at least in the U.S with limited exceptions). There are of course exceptions, but they tend to be pretty minor. Most of the exceptions tend to be civil rather than criminal matters (in the U.S). Other exceptions tend to be purely societal, where no law exists against it in either civil or criminal matters, but people do not do it anyway.

What are your thoughts?

Are you sure that the limitations of the First amendment aren't handled within the law codes? I'm pretty convinced they all are. Not everyone might be in the criminal code, but corresponding laws exist, else the applicable words in the amendment are meaningless.

Generally speaking..... I've always found the Bill of Rights, and likely the entire constitution very flawed. For the fact that it's simply too vague. Every amendment gives much too much room for misinterpretation, for misuse thereof.
The first and the second amendment stand witness to this.

If I compare now....... USA vs Germany for example.

US - First amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Germany - Article 5:

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.

(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

That shows already how one of them is vague and vulnerable by being way too unspecific. The other one however covers a lot of basics right from the start.

We have heaps of Americans that believe the first amendment is unregulated, and they have absolute freedom in that regard..
Why? Because, it misses the informational outliers mentioned, a shown under (2) in the German equivalent.

[GennGreymane]

I never said that they are not handled by criminal law, I said most are handled by civil law. I also put it from a U.S perspective