Freedom of speech. Does it really exist?

[We Never Know]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

 

[SomeRandom]

By that definition? I suppose not.
But most countries do tend to leave out the “without retaliation” part in their freedom of speech laws.
Otherwise you’d have something like Holocaust denial being unchallenged
Just saying

 

[Subduction Zone]

Freedom of speech refers to government retaliation. It limits their ability to punish people for political speech. Free speech in the private world does not really exist. If you post something racist on your Facebook page and your boss finds out about it he can fire you. But the government cannot imprison you for that sort of speech.

 

[sun rise]

Even at the governmental level there's legal constraints on speech (fire/theater).. And in real life:

freedom of speech, right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content.

 

[John53]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

Freedom of speech depends on where you are and who is in hearing range.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

I think your definition of 'retaliation' is far too loose.
The way you're defining it, free speech is impossible, since dissenting opinion (free speech in and of itself) is considered 'retribution'.

 

[We Never Know]

Freedom of speech refers to government retaliation. It limits their ability to punish people for political speech. Free speech in the private world does not really exist. If you post something racist on your Facebook page and your boss finds out about it he can fire you. But the government cannot imprison you for that sort of speech.

So freedom of speech doesn't exist between individuals, its only recognized by/from the government. Which if the government controls what is freedom of speech, it really isnt freedom of speech since its controlled.

 

[We Never Know]

I think your definition of 'retaliation' is far too loose.
The way you're defining it, free speech is impossible, since dissenting opinion (free speech in and of itself) is considered 'retribution'.

See post #7

 

[lewisnotmiller]

See post #7

My point stands. Other people disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to 'retaliation'.
Punching them in the face would.

Nothing to do with whether the government is involved.

Charlie Hedbo was non-governmental retaliation in an attempt to curtail free speech.

 

[We Never Know]

My point stands. Other people disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to 'retaliation'.
Punching them in the face would.

Nothing to do with whether the government is involved.

Charlie Hedbo was non-governmental retaliation in an attempt to curtail free speech.

"Other people disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to 'retaliation'."

Calling them stupid, ignorant, uneducated, etc.. any personal attack is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Other people disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to 'retaliation'."

Calling them stupid, ignorant, uneducated, etc.. any personal attack is.

Nope. It's free speech.
I don't actually see unfettered free speech as the gold standard, but there you go.

You could argue more around actual libel, for instance if I told a lie about someone, calling them a child sex predator or something.

 

[paradox]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

Excluding retaliations which you mentioned, freedom of speech exists as long as your speech doesn't harm the government or some other authority.
Once you do be ready for asymmetrical consequences, likely they won't take your freedom of speech away but will return you a favor by other means so that it looks like your "freedom of speech" is not taken away.

 

[Vee]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

Freedom of speech is getting rarer, as are many other freedoms we've taken for granted. Today, you are allowed to have your own opinion as long as it fits the narrative and makes others happy.
It's sad that society has become such a mess that full grown adults can't grasp the basic concept of respecting someone else's point of view even if it's different from their own.
It's gotten so extreme than we "walk on eggshells", worried about saying something that is simply good sense but is somehow offensive to someone else. We live in sad times...

 

[Brickjectivity]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

The definition is confusing me, since I am not used to using the word 'Principle' in that way. Freedom of speech I think arises out of necessity and ability. It is like breathing air. Everyone needs air, and everyone can breath air. The principle is that we must allow people to do the things that everyone needs. Mostly this is just self interest. If we infringe the breathing of air we are killing ourselves. In order for society to be cohesive we must allow people to breath. We must also allow people to speak in order to have a cohesive society.

Some would argue we don't need to allow people to speak. They argue that its not a necessity. The question is: is it a necessity? I say it is. That is what I mean by a natural right to speech. Why a necessity? Because without it society crumbles.

 

[exchemist]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

I don't know where you got that definition from but you seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by "retaliation". It is no part of any sensible definition of freedom of speech to say it requires no disagreement with what it is said. If it were, freedom of speech would be logically impossible, as disallowing disagreement would itself contradict freedom of speech.

So whatever the definition intends to say, it cannot mean that disagreement violates freedom of speech.

 

[Erebus]

"Other people disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to 'retaliation'."

Calling them stupid, ignorant, uneducated, etc.. any personal attack is.

If those insults constitute a violation of your rights or cause you harm, how do you prevent people from saying them? Should they be made illegal?

The tricky thing with free speech is determining exactly where to draw the line. At what point does speech become too harmful to not have a legal penalty?

If somebody was to post your name and address online and claim that you were a paedophile, that obviously puts you in very real danger and I think even most free speech absolutists would agree that it crosses the line. If somebody instead claimed that members of your racial group are more likely to be paedophiles, they haven't targeted you specifically but could have increased the odds of you being attacked nonetheless. This is especially true if the person saying it has access to a wide audience.

I honestly can't give any concrete answer as to where we draw the line. I will say though that I don't see calling somebody stupid, ignorant or uneducated as coming anywhere close to it.

 

[sayak83]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

As per your definition if speech were truly free then personal attacks are under free speech protection too. So what are you complaining about?

 

[paradox]

If somebody was to post your name and address online and claim that you were a paedophile, that obviously puts you in very real danger and I think even most free speech absolutists would agree that it crosses the line.

That's defamation, not really free speech and is regulated by the law - it's illegal.
Whispering can also be considered defamation if there is bad intent and if proven you can be legally processed.

 

[Erebus]

That's defamation, not really free speech and is regulated by the law - it's illegal.
Whispering can also be considered defamation if there is bad intent and if proven you can be legally processed.

This is my point. It's a form of speech that's deemed too harmful not to have legal consequences.

So at what point should speech have legal consequences? The post I quoted cited insults as a form of retaliation which might violate a person's right to free speech. That being the case, should those insults be illegal?

 

[Secret Chief]

Does freedom speech really exist?

By definition freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

With that said if freedom of speech actually exists, over half the threads and comments on this forum wouldn't exist.

If someone says they believe in a god or don't believe in a god,, they face retaliation.

If someone says Trump is great and Biden sux(or vise-versa) they face retaliation.

If someone says I'm pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay marriage or
If someone says I'm anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay marriage... They face retaliation

If someone says repubs are best for America or vise-versa Dems are great for America... They face retalitation.

So does freedom of speech really exist by definition?

Presumably you mean retaliation utilising freedom of speech?

Of course there should not be absolute legal freedom of speech because that would mean (as we all know) the freedom to shout "Fire!" in a theatre full of people when there is no fire.