Freedom of Speech

[The Hammer]

It has come to my attention that people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of said speech.

For those that believe you can say just about anything you want with impunity, why is that?

What are the limits on freedom of speech if any in your view.

 

[ChristineM]

It has come to my attention that people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of said speech.

For those that believe you can say just about anything you want with impunity, why is that?

What are the limits on freedom of speech if any in your view.

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.
There are too many people, who won't take responsibility for their words. This leads to conflict.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It has come to my attention that people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of said speech.

For those that believe you can say just about anything you want with impunity, why is that?

What are the limits on freedom of speech if any in your view.

There is no freedom to incite. See: Imminent Lawless Action.

 

[The Hammer]

There is no freedom to incite. See: Imminent Lawless Action.

I asked for opinion though, I know there is legal precedent. The people that think that we can say anything care not for the legal precedent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no freedom to incite. See: Imminent Lawless Action.

I asked for opinion though, I know there is legal precedent.

Good grief!

My opinion is that "[t]here is no freedom to incite." Legal precedent concurs.

The people that think that we can say anything care not for the legal precedent.

What the hell does that have to do with my answer?

 

[The Hammer]

Good grief!

My opinion is that "[t]here is no freedom to incite." Legal precedent concurs.


What the hell does that have to do with my answer?

Panties in a wad this morning?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Panties in a wad this morning?

It's afternoon.

 

[The Hammer]

It's afternoon.

Ok?

 

[rocala]

people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of said speech.

Well said, we ignore this issue at our peril. Sadly this goes beyond just speech. Not long ago a terrorist was arrested in my home city. As soon as the police arrived, he was yelling "I know my human rights". A courtesy not extended to his victims.
As Christine has made clear in post 2, responsibility is a major factor in this. A society with no responsibilities is one where rights are meaningless.

 

[LadyJane]

The current free speech obsession seems to give a charge to people who have the luxury of living in places that afford huge leeway in that regard. Except they fret as though they don't. The endless diatribes aren't necessarily indicative of the endangerment of such freedoms but evidence that people seeking that rush will scratch that itch by being as provocative as it takes to get a reaction. Then claim they're being stifled at the slightest bit of pushback.

(Chasing their tails til the flight attendant gets the duct tape.)

Truly oppressed individuals rarely do that. They live their lives with the understanding that we are a global community and the less hateful rhetoric the better off we'll be. Citizens who take personal responsibility for their actions need not defend the bigots who don't. With a modicum of civility there'd not be the need for laws to mitigate hate speech. People wouldn't promote destructive and hurtful language. They would defend those who it targets.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are the limits on freedom of speech if any in your view.

Definitely other fundamental rights are limits on free speech.

For instance, a gag order to ensure a fair trial is a reasonable limit on free speech, IMO.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

It has come to my attention that people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of said speech.

For those that believe you can say just about anything you want with impunity, why is that?

What are the limits on freedom of speech if any in your view.

Well, there’s the ‘No inciting violence‘ thing, which I agree with.
There’s also the issue of what speech is not. I.e. - money is NOT speech, and the freedom of speech does not apply to companies And campaign contributions.
Personally, I’m in favor of each campaign to be given a specific allotment of money for advertising. Anything above and beyond that means you and all your contributors go to jail. It’s the only fair thing to do.

One human being, one soapbox.
…. which brings us to the other thing, Ronald Reagan was wrong.
Anyone can grab a soapbox and stand up on the street corner and pronounce whatever the heck they want to to the world. That’s free. But if you have the power and money to spout off on the airwaves, then you MUST give free time, of equal amount to your opponents, to speak out contrary to what you say.
The airwaves are public; just like standing on a soapbox is public. The listeners, as well as analysts and news-casters can debate how rational and fact-based (or not) your speech is.

 

[icehorse]

The current free speech obsession seems to give a charge to people who have the luxury of living in places that afford huge leeway in that regard. Except they fret as though they don't. The endless diatribes aren't necessarily indicative of the endangerment of such freedoms but evidence that people seeking that rush will scratch that itch by being as provocative as it takes to get a reaction. Then claim they're being stifled at the slightest bit of pushback.

(Chasing their tails til the flight attendant gets the duct tape.)

Truly oppressed individuals rarely do that. They live their lives with the understanding that we are a global community and the less hateful rhetoric the better off we'll be. Citizens who take personal responsibility for their actions need not defend the bigots who don't. With a modicum of civility there'd not be the need for laws to mitigate hate speech. People wouldn't promote destructive and hurtful language. They would defend those who it targets.

I think this post misses the main point of free speech.

Sure, bad actors can use free speech to insult others. But its true power lies in being able to criticize bad ideas, often the bad ideas of those in power. And that is so crucial, that it's worth putting up with some "offensive" speech here and there.