Freedom Speech = Free to say anything you like y/n?

[stvdv]

Different people have different opinions on Freedom of Speech. You are:
*) Free to speak your opinion

Many on RF think it also means you are:
*) Free to hurt others with your words

Then, if you have hurt someone, he is:
*) Free to make a joke "I will kill you"

So, where does it end? Are you Free to:
belittle (make fun of) Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize the person Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize actions done by Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
What good would it be to use your freedom to belittle persons?
(Especially when you know you hurt/anger them)?

I believe that Freedom of Speech means, that you are free to give your opinion and even if you can't oblige, you can always speak obligingly. A bit like how the RF Rules instruct us to behave a bit humane and decent
"Play the ball, don't play the man"

So,
Freedom of Speech
does not mean
Freedom to Hurt

Or does it mean:
a) You are Free, as in you can't be charged by a judge, to say whatever you want, as it are just words. When put in action, then different rules apply
b) You are Free to say what you want, but a judge could hold you accountable for what you said
c) You can say whatever you want, but RF Rules still apply, and your freedom could be taken away, even if you just used Freedom of Speech
d) Do (not) unto others what you do (not) want be done to you

In the Poll I just gave a few examples
And if you think of other examples
Please share them in a post

At least it's good to know, when debating, what we can expect, and what should (not) be done

 

[JustGeorge]

Are we talking about free speech in daily life, or free speech on RF?

RF doesn't actually have free speech. That's not a secret.

 

[Heyo]

Different people have different opinions on Freedom of Speech. You are:
*) Free to speak your opinion

Many on RF think it also means you are:
*) Free to hurt others with your words

Then, if you have hurt someone, he is:
*) Free to make a joke "I will kill you"

So, where does it end? Are you Free to:
belittle (make fun of) Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize the person Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize actions done by Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
What good would it be to use your freedom to belittle persons?
(Especially when you know you hurt/anger them)?

I believe that Freedom of Speech means, that you are free to give your opinion and even if you can't oblige, you can always speak obligingly. A bit like how the RF Rules instruct us to behave a bit humane and decent
"Play the ball, don't play the man"

So,
Freedom of Speech
does not mean
Freedom to Hurt

Or does it mean:
a) You are Free, as in you can't be charged by a judge, to say whatever you want, as it are just words. When put in action, then different rules apply
b) You are Free to say what you want, but a judge could hold you accountable for what you said
c) You can say whatever you want, but RF Rules still apply, and your freedom could be taken away, even if you just used Freedom of Speech
d) Do (not) unto others what you do (not) want be done to you

In the Poll I just gave a few examples
And if you think of other examples
Please share them in a post

At least it's good to know, when debating, what we can expect, and what should (not) be done

The problem with limited freedom to hurt is that people have widely different levels of pain.

When I'd use the Golden Rule, "d) Do (not) unto others what you do (not) want be done to you", you'd probably scream in pain.
On the other hand, I'd probably feel my intellect to be assaulted when people post sugar-coated bull**** and expect me to eat it up.

The truth hurts, lies hurt.

And beating around the bush doesn't get us anywhere, we'd may as well limit our conversations to the weather.
In fact, pussyfooting can be perceived as condescending.

So, you can't have a friendly conversation with everyone using the same words. You have to read your interlocutor/audience. Courtesy is pretty much dependent upon culture. In my culture, we value truth and authenticity above sweet talk.

 

[stvdv]

Are we talking about free speech in daily life, or free speech on RF?

RF doesn't actually have free speech. That's not a secret.

No, Free Speech in general

 

[stvdv]

The problem with limited freedom to hurt is that people have widely different levels of pain.

When I'd use the Golden Rule, "d) Do (not) unto others what you do (not) want be done to you", you'd probably scream in pain.
On the other hand, I'd probably feel my intellect to be assaulted when people post sugar-coated bull**** and expect me to eat it up.

The truth hurts, lies hurt.

And beating around the bush doesn't get us anywhere, we'd may as well limit our conversations to the weather.
In fact, pussyfooting can be perceived as condescending.

So, you can't have a friendly conversation with everyone using the same words. You have to read your interlocutor/audience. Courtesy is pretty much dependent upon culture. In my culture, we value truth and authenticity above sweet talk.

But I'm sure you think there should be some restrictions on Free Speech

Do you believe in Carte Blanche to Free Speech?

And what about:
Free Speech is "not free" if it can get you in jail

 

[Heyo]

But I'm sure you think there should be some restrictions on Free Speech

Do you believe in Carte Blanche to Free Speech?

Nope.
I'm mostly OK with how freedom of speech is handled in most countries in the Western world.
You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theatre, is probably the most cited limit, and it is one that's useful, the same goes for calls for violence, and for (specific) threats.
A mixed bag are libel laws. It pretty much depends on the real, measurable damage.
Where I draw the line is blasphemy. When it just hurts your feelings, get a thicker skin.

And what about:
Free Speech is "not free" if it can get you in jail

If it gets you in jail, it wasn't free speech. Know the law.

 

[stvdv]

Nope.
I'm mostly OK with how freedom of speech is handled in most countries in the Western world.
You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theatre, is probably the most cited limit, and it is one that's useful, the same goes for calls for violence, and for (specific) threats.
A mixed bag are libel laws. It pretty much depends on the real, measurable damage.

Okay, that's my thought too
There should be limits to Free Speech

If it gets you in jail, it wasn't free speech. Know the law.

Exactly. Free Speech doesn't mean you are free to say whatever you like

 

[stvdv]

Where I draw the line is blasphemy. When it just hurts your feelings, get a thicker skin.

Question: If you have a friend who you know for a long time, and let's say that he becomes a millionaire, and suddenly he starts belittling you, calling you poor, beneath him, saying mean things, also publicly about you, maybe talking behind your back

It's just about feelings, no physical hurt

Do you keep him as a friend? And do you take it as a challenge to grow a thicker skin

 

[Heyo]

Question: If you have a friend who you know for a long time, and let's say that he becomes a millionaire, and suddenly he starts belittling you, calling you poor, beneath him, saying mean things, also publicly about you, maybe talking behind your back

It's just about feelings, no physical hurt

Do you keep him as a friend? And do you take it as a challenge to grow a thicker skin

So many different things ...

calling you poor

That's just the truth, doesn't hurt me.

beneath him

saying mean things

No problem - if he can deal with the echo.

maybe talking behind your back

That may become a problem. If he is spreading lies that could hurt me monetarily, he's gone too far.
But that is unlikely, as in the company I keep, being direct and truthful, is a virtue, so people will confront me with his allegations and he will lose all credibility.
Gossip only works when people are too "polite" to ask directly.

 

[stvdv]

So many different things ...

That's just the truth, doesn't hurt me.

True for me too, Though I have enough to live

No problem - if he can deal with the echo.

When I ask them "why are you mean to me?", usually they don't like that kind of echo, and meanness diminishes

That may become a problem. If he is spreading lies that could hurt me monetarily, he's gone too far.
But that is unlikely, as in the company I keep, being direct and truthful, is a virtue

Aha ... being truthful is all that I need

, so people will confront me with his allegations and he will lose all credibility.
Gossip only works when people are too "polite" to ask directly.

Thank you for answering, I appreciate that

 

[Stevicus]

Different people have different opinions on Freedom of Speech. You are:
*) Free to speak your opinion

Many on RF think it also means you are:
*) Free to hurt others with your words

Then, if you have hurt someone, he is:
*) Free to make a joke "I will kill you"

So, where does it end? Are you Free to:
belittle (make fun of) Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize the person Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize actions done by Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
What good would it be to use your freedom to belittle persons?
(Especially when you know you hurt/anger them)?

I believe that Freedom of Speech means, that you are free to give your opinion and even if you can't oblige, you can always speak obligingly. A bit like how the RF Rules instruct us to behave a bit humane and decent
"Play the ball, don't play the man"

So,
Freedom of Speech
does not mean
Freedom to Hurt

Or does it mean:
a) You are Free, as in you can't be charged by a judge, to say whatever you want, as it are just words. When put in action, then different rules apply
b) You are Free to say what you want, but a judge could hold you accountable for what you said
c) You can say whatever you want, but RF Rules still apply, and your freedom could be taken away, even if you just used Freedom of Speech
d) Do (not) unto others what you do (not) want be done to you

In the Poll I just gave a few examples
And if you think of other examples
Please share them in a post

At least it's good to know, when debating, what we can expect, and what should (not) be done

I think freedom of speech is related to freedom of the press, which was established so that people could be critical of government without fear of legal repercussions or censorship.

Sometimes, I think we tend to make "freedom of speech" sound so black and white, as if either a country/society has it, or they don't. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant, many people seem to believe that you can't have a little bit of free speech. It's an all-or-nothing affair, in many people's eyes. Either a country has "free speech" or they don't. There's no in between.

 

[bobhikes]

I would say you are free to speak until you are asked to stop. If you then chose not to stop, then if harm can be proven you should face the consequences. If no harm is done speak all you like.

All people have the right to speak and all people have the right to defend themselves from harm. Words can cause harm.

 

[Kathryn]

Are we taking politically, legally, inside or outside of one's home, etc? The reason I am asking is because morally I do believe in limits on free speech but my morals may or may not apply politically, legally, or inside or outside of one's home.

 

[stvdv]

I think freedom of speech is related to freedom of the press, which was established so that people could be critical of government without fear of legal repercussions or censorship.

Sometimes, I think we tend to make "freedom of speech" sound so black and white, as if either a country/society has it, or they don't. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant, many people seem to believe that you can't have a little bit of free speech. It's an all-or-nothing affair, in many people's eyes. Either a country has "free speech" or they don't. There's no in between.

Thank you, makes sense to me

I would say you are free to speak until you are asked to stop. If you then chose not to stop, then if harm can be proven you should face the consequences. If no harm is done speak all you like.

All people have the right to speak and all people have the right to defend themselves from harm. Words can cause harm.

That's feels really good, very respectful
"Free to Speak", but "not Free to Hurt"

Are we taking politically, legally, inside or outside of one's home, etc? The reason I am asking is because morally I do believe in limits on free speech but my morals may or may not apply politically, legally, or inside or outside of one's home.

Good points from my POV.
IF morals are lost in the name of Free Speech
it would feel like IS killing in the Name of God

 

[osgart]

Criticism and denouncing of statements, criminals, behaviors, intentions, actions should always be a freedom and a right.

There's no right to mock, slander or belittle.

Factual statements should always be a freedom and right.

Opinions, for the most part, should always be a freedom and a right.

Satire, humor, and the like should be a freedom and a right.

Everything spoken should have civil standards. There is such a thing as criminal speech. Speech can be unnecessarily violent, denigrating and demeaning; that is abusive.

Speaking in self and/or other(s) defense should be protected.

There's always going to be controversy, and issues on a case by case basis with regards to what is acceptable and rejectable freedom of speech.

Consenting adult speech is fine. In private, and outside of public influence say what you want.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Different people have different opinions on Freedom of Speech. Y

I checked none of the possibilities. Freedom of speech means that the government cannot penalize you for the things you say, unless they directly endanger others. This especially applies to political speech.

Not every country has freedom of speech. In totalitarian regimes, people are routinely imprisoned, tortured, and killed for voicing ideas contrary to the ideology of the state.

Here is what freedom of speech is NOT:

It doesn't mean there are no social consequences. If you say something rude or offensive, other people are not going to want to be around you, aren't going to want to work with you, aren't going to invite you to events, etc. For example, if you come to my house for dinner, and start talking hatefully about whatever, I will show you the door.

It doesn't mean you can say what you want on private property. A store can throw you out for using profanity. A chatroom can kick you out for trolling. An employer can fire you for making statements or discussing topics contrary to their rules. IOW, while the government can't throw you in jail for espousing left wing (or right wing) remarks, a social media platform can certainly censor you.

 

[icehorse]

Interpersonally I think "be kind" is a good rule.

But I think "free speech" mostly has to do with criticizing ideas and behaviors in politics and religion and "the establishment. Some examples:

- We must be free to criticize our leaders' ideas and actions.
- We must be free to criticize religions (i.e. the idea of "blasphemy" is horrible).
- We must be free to criticize activists' ideas or actions.
- We must be free to criticize institutions and corporations.

 

[wellwisher]

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything. However, not everyone is capable of handling free speech, due to subjective attachments of certain sounds to hurtful emotions. These programmed attachments can be used like dog whistles, to induced specific irrational output behavior.

The Political left, via identity politics, were able to attach so many dog whistles to speech, it became hard to discuss issues without offending. The goal was to eliminate free speech, via enhanced sensitivity, so nobody could speak truth to power. For example, it used to be considered racist to point out the high crime in Democrat run inner cities. That dog whistle made the facts and critical thinking solutions, hate speech. That was the goal. This way that crime could be ignored, since nobody talked about it

The pronoun nonsense, restricts freedom of speech, by not by only controlling how and what can be said, but it has a multiplier effect for the number of people that can have a dog whistle attached for the same behavior.

Say I decided to used someone's implanted dog whistle, to get under their skin and make them irrational, just for laughs. But instead of saying it in English, I said it in a foreign language. Since this is the same intent but a different noise, would it work. The answer is no since a specific sound is the little ball in the whistle. Conceptually, you could use different language to take the little ball out of any dog whistle, and allow freedom of speech.

I used to do some simple speech experiments of my dog to prove it was not the words, but rather how the words were said, that could influence his behavior. In other words, I would say "nice dog", but have anger in my voice. Or I might say, did you crap on the carpet, but smile with love in my voice. Like expected, he responded to the feelings more than the specific sounds and noises. This seems to be true of humans also. Feeling is where the dog whistle are attached. You can see this is gang culture, where hate words among strangers become words of endearment, between gang members; like the n-word.

I remember as a child my grandfather, on my mother side, was French Canadian, and he spoke good French but broken English. If he was upset about something and wanted to vent, but children were around, he would cuss in French, so the children did not know to be hurt or embarrassed. You knew he was mad, by the feeling behind his words, but the words did not have a multiplier effect.

This worked at least to until my older brother started learn the French swears and taught them to the younger kids. Still this strange sounds seemed to have a different effect; more funny and less tense, since the adults never taught us those sounds and how to react.

We not be able to have truly free speech, until half the population goes to dog whistle removal therapy. Then life will be one large construction site where free speech is still alive and dog whistles have been removed; desensitized.

 

[Nakosis]

Different people have different opinions on Freedom of Speech. You are:
*) Free to speak your opinion

Many on RF think it also means you are:
*) Free to hurt others with your words

Then, if you have hurt someone, he is:
*) Free to make a joke "I will kill you"

So, where does it end? Are you Free to:
belittle (make fun of) Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize the person Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
criticize actions done by Muhammad/Jesus/Atheist?
What good would it be to use your freedom to belittle persons?
(Especially when you know you hurt/anger them)?

I believe that Freedom of Speech means, that you are free to give your opinion and even if you can't oblige, you can always speak obligingly. A bit like how the RF Rules instruct us to behave a bit humane and decent
"Play the ball, don't play the man"

So,
Freedom of Speech
does not mean
Freedom to Hurt

Or does it mean:
a) You are Free, as in you can't be charged by a judge, to say whatever you want, as it are just words. When put in action, then different rules apply
b) You are Free to say what you want, but a judge could hold you accountable for what you said
c) You can say whatever you want, but RF Rules still apply, and your freedom could be taken away, even if you just used Freedom of Speech
d) Do (not) unto others what you do (not) want be done to you

In the Poll I just gave a few examples
And if you think of other examples
Please share them in a post

At least it's good to know, when debating, what we can expect, and what should (not) be done

IMO, it means the government cannot suppress your right to criticize the government. It limits the power of government. Doesn't limit the power of individuals, corporations, non-governmental organization to hold an individual accountable for their speech.

Lots of non-governmental entities out there that can hold you accountable for what you say.

 

[GoodAttention]

Freedom of speech should be a right for all private citizens without burden.

Any entity, business, religious, or political, should abide by the law.