• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Freedom of speech. Does it really exist?

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
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?
Agree with you, I think, insults if on national, religious, race, sexual, and similar base are illegal.

But I don't know if insults on personal base are illegal,
It depends on where you live (ex. some insults are part of a culture) and also whether your insult causes social unrest.
Insult (legal) - Wikipedia

As you can see, in the US and many other countries insults are legal.
 

Secret Chief

Veteran Member
Agree with you, I think, insults if on national, religious, race, sexual, and similar base are illegal.

But I don't know if insults on personal base are illegal, it depends on where you live (ex. some insults are part of a culture) and also whether your insult causes social unrest.
Insult (legal) - Wikipedia

As you can see, in the US and many other countries insults are legal.
Yes, the concept varies around the world from country to country. The US, the UK, North Korea, Germany....every country ...
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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?
Reframing response in a debate forum as retaliation is a more than silly affront to freedom of speech.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Freedom of speech requires rational adults who are not emotionally disabled or compromised. If you are not rational or you just memorize group ideas, your ideas may be vulnerable to reason, so censorship may be needed to keep them alive. Bad ideas, with restricted free speech and censorship can linger much longer than they would, if free speech was the way of the world. The side that censors tends to have the worse ideas that are vulnerable to reason.

In the old Soviet Union, for example, the Government would say how everything was good for its people via the state run media. One was not allowed to observed and speak out to reality. Censorship allowed the fantasy world to appear to be real, since nobody seemed to be complaining. Free speech is needed so facts can come out and solutions can be found.

If you are emotionally fragile or compromised then you may want to censor magic words and ideas, so you don't fall apart; loss of soul. I do not think it is a good idea for the patients to be running the asylum. We should be considerate of the emotional ill, but if you slip in the heat of free speech, the patients need to also be considerate, since this act of self control will help them heal.

In the US, social and legacy media tends to target only one side of the political isle for censorship, using a one sided and deceptive criteria called hate speech. Hate speech panders to emotions and not reason and is very subjective. It tends to place its thumb on the scale of censorship.

If you are white, male and Conservative you are expected to take all forms of free speech, since you are assumed to be the least emotionally crippled. Your feeling of white privilege is like a shield that makes you more mature or deserving of the dual standard. The word hate can used, but this is not hate speech; irrational form of censorship. The exception are Leftist white males who can say anything.

The same parallel things said about a wide range of Leftist groups are taboo. The left, when looking at itself, assumes we are dealing with tender brains and compromised hearts, caused by the indoctrination of Left, which is too easy to compromise by free speech. These sheep are vulnerable to shearing by anyone.

If I was to point out that a major cause of death among young black men were other young black men, this fact will be called hate speech. The idea is to end the discussion with an emotional taboo, before any facts are laid out, so we can help solve the problem. This is the worse form of censorship since it uses emotions to compromise common sense so the sickness can remain.

Free speech is not just about talking, but it is also about not having to recite any party line. The pronoun nonsense to help sell the transgender fad, cannot be forced on anyone, especially in state run public schools, due to free speech. However, this word game can still be done on a volunteer basis. Freedom of speech allows for both choices.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Freedom without responsibility is just selfishness run amok. So with any real freedom there comes the responsibility of minding how our behavior effects others. Even freedom of speech and expression have limits respective of their effect on others. If we slander others, for example, and that slander causes them damage, we can be sued in court for compensation for those damages. If we use speech to instigate violent actions by others, we can be held accountable for that violence even if we did not physically participate in it.

So we need to understand that even free speech has a responsibility attached to it. As do all individual freedoms within a human collective.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
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?
In the United States, freedom of speech doesn't exist, or at least not to a certain extent.

Here in my country I can say literally anything. As long as I do not address my reasoning or speech to determined individuals.
Remaining generic, you can say anything.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Freedom of speech requires rational adults who are not emotionally disabled or compromised. If you are not rational or you just memorize group ideas, your ideas may be vulnerable to reason, so censorship may be needed to keep them alive. Bad ideas, with restricted free speech and censorship can linger much longer than they would, if free speech was the way of the world. The side that censors tends to have the worse ideas that are vulnerable to reason.

In the old Soviet Union, for example, the Government would say how everything was good for its people via the state run media. One was not allowed to observed and speak out to reality. Censorship allowed the fantasy world to appear to be real, since nobody seemed to be complaining. Free speech is needed so facts can come out and solutions can be found.

If you are emotionally fragile or compromised then you may want to censor magic words and ideas, so you don't fall apart; loss of soul. I do not think it is a good idea for the patients to be running the asylum. We should be considerate of the emotional ill, but if you slip in the heat of free speech, the patients need to also be considerate, since this act of self control will help them heal.

In the US, social and legacy media tends to target only one side of the political isle for censorship, using a one sided and deceptive criteria called hate speech. Hate speech panders to emotions and not reason and is very subjective. It tends to place its thumb on the scale of censorship.

If you are white, male and Conservative you are expected to take all forms of free speech, since you are assumed to be the least emotionally crippled. Your feeling of white privilege is like a shield that makes you more mature or deserving of the dual standard. The word hate can used, but this is not hate speech; irrational form of censorship. The exception are Leftist white males who can say anything.

The same parallel things said about a wide range of Leftist groups are taboo. The left, when looking at itself, assumes we are dealing with tender brains and compromised hearts, caused by the indoctrination of Left, which is too easy to compromise by free speech. These sheep are vulnerable to shearing by anyone.

If I was to point out that a major cause of death among young black men were other young black men, this fact will be called hate speech. The idea is to end the discussion with an emotional taboo, before any facts are laid out, so we can help solve the problem. This is the worse form of censorship since it uses emotions to compromise common sense so the sickness can remain.

Free speech is not just about talking, but it is also about not having to recite any party line. The pronoun nonsense to help sell the transgender fad, cannot be forced on anyone, especially in state run public schools, due to free speech. However, this word game can still be done on a volunteer basis. Freedom of speech allows for both choices.

You really look at the world this way, huh?
 
Top