What is freedom of speech?

[JustGeorge]

Oh God. I give up.

I'd never heard of that, either, until you linked it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you censor people you don't like just because of their political views or religious views or what-not it opens up a venue to censor others that follow.

That mechanism is what dictatorships and authoritarians use.

I don't really think that disagreement is censorship. I don't think that ridicule of a political figure is censorship. It may not be right, but doing so is exercising free speech as near as I can tell.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you censor people you don't like just because of their political views or religious views or what-not it opens up a venue to censor others that follow.

That mechanism is what dictatorships and authoritarians use.

The reality is that in the US, citizens censor people all the time. Your reference to TDS was your personal attempt to censor in my opinion. You are trying to shut down a certain line of speech. I think you have the right to do it. That doesn't mean I agree with it or don't.

As far as I know, censorship by citizens has a legal basis and is permitted within limits.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look at the TDS crowd.

I was sort of hoping that Trump wouldn't come up right away (at all really, but I know that is asking for too much), but I suppose getting it over with is just as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is the text of the First Amendment.

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.

Does it say that someone cannot make statements about current or former presidents whether correct or irrational and that others can't coin cute little names for them to use as pejoratives?

Who exactly does the US Constitution say is primarily forbidden from abridging the freedom of speech?

 

[F1fan]

I think you do.

It means any type of speech that is a victim of censorship opens a path to tyranny.

So lies about others should be allowable, no libel or slander laws?

 

[F1fan]

Look at the TDS crowd.

It seems to be you given you always bring this up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the text of the First Amendment.

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.

Does it say that someone cannot make statements about current or former presidents whether correct or irrational and that others can't coin cute little names for them to use as pejoratives?

Who exactly does the US Constitution say is primarily forbidden from abridging the freedom of speech?

The Gubmnint?

I am sadly surprised by the number of people that do not understand the First Amendment. If you say something bad here you can get banned, or so I have heard If you post hate speech on Facebook and your boss finds out he can fire you. There are all sorts of consequences that can happen from our speech. There is only one entity that is banned from punishing us for what we say.,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at the TDS crowd.

I know. It is awful. The Democrats have gotten over their TDS for the most part, the worst sufferers are now the Republicans.

 

[JustGeorge]

I feel a lot of people confuse freedom of speech in the US with private business rights.

You can sit in your yard and say all the foul things you want. A friend of ours has a neighbor that hollers racial slurs at the kids that walk by her house on their way from school. Its disgusting, and people alert the police, but nothing can be done because she's on her property.

However, if she were to do that in a place of business, they can ask her to leave. I'm sure she'd scream about her freedom of speech, but at a place of business, you have to play by their rules. Or leave.

And if someone hauls off and hits her someday... I don't think she'll get a lot of sympathy from most of us.

 

[F1fan]

The Gubmnint?

I am sadly surprised by the number of people that do not understand the First Amendment. If you say something bad here you can get banned, or so I have heard If you post hate speech on Facebook and your boss finds out he can fire you. There are all sorts of consequences that can happen from our speech. There is only one entity that is banned from punishing us for what we say.,

Right, the freedom of speech is seldom what people think it is. Private companies can limit speech legally since they are not government agencies. Twitter could legally ban trump due to his violation of that company's user standards. It was trump's choice to violate the rules, thus he was banned due to his actions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So lies about others should be allowable, no libel or slander laws?

I see those as examples of legal limitations placed on the freedom of individuals to say whatever they want.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to be you given you always bring this up.

I had hopes, but clearly unrealistic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Gubmnint?

I am sadly surprised by the number of people that do not understand the First Amendment. If you say something bad here you can get banned, or so I have heard If you post hate speech on Facebook and your boss finds out he can fire you. There are all sorts of consequences that can happen from our speech. There is only one entity that is banned from punishing us for what we say.,

It has always surprised me how little people understand their own rights especially that one. For instance, people may be able to say a lot of things in their own home that I would not permit them to say in mine. And the limitations I would impose on my premises do not strip their 1st Amendment rights or open the door for tyranny, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I feel a lot of people confuse freedom of speech in the US with private business rights.

You can sit in your yard and say all the foul things you want. A friend of ours has a neighbor that hollers racial slurs at the kids that walk by her house on their way from school. Its disgusting, and people alert the police, but nothing can be done because she's on her property.

However, if she were to do that in a place of business, they can ask her to leave. I'm sure she'd scream about her freedom of speech, but at a place of business, you have to play by their rules. Or leave.

And if someone hauls off and hits her someday... I don't think she'll get a lot of sympathy from most of us.

That is a good example

As I see it in such instances individuals and businesses are exercising their freedom from speech they do not agree with. They are not imposing sanctions on that woman's speech everywhere, just where they have their own rights they can enforce. They are simply saying that in my space, I do not have to give you a platform or the time say things I find offensive, disagree with or that shuts down the voice of others.

Just as this forum imposes limitations on what we post to keep the interchange civil and promote a voice for all members that is free from irrational abuse. Those are not rules that force us to agree with opinions that we don't agree with. Disagree or agree all you like, but do so adhering responsibly and respectfully to the rights of others.

I think that some people think that their very emotionally charged views somehow naturally impose suppression of those that say things they don't want to hear or do not agree with. That their own dissent grants them powers of suppression they don't really possess.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does anyone know of a platform that allowed open, unfettered exchange between people using it? Or any that experimented with that.

Personally, I am guessing either none have or none were successful considering that most I am aware of have rules governing what and how things can be communicated on them.

I can imagine that things on such a platform would quickly break down into nothing but flame wars and the death of ideas and perspectives.

 

[JustGeorge]

Does anyone know of a platform that allowed open, unfettered exchange between people using it? Or any that experimented with that.

Personally, I am guessing either none have or none were successful considering that most I am aware of have rules governing what and how things can be communicated on them.

I can imagine that things on such a platform would quickly break down into nothing but flame wars and the death of ideas and perspectives.

Just face to face conversation.

But that still has consequences...

 

[F1fan]

I see those as examples of legal limitations placed on the freedom of individuals to say whatever they want.

Indeed. Laws are written to help guide less ethical, or careless, citizens use their freedoms responsibly.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What does it mean to you? Does it mean we can say whatever we want whenever we want to whomever we want wherever we want? Would that even be a good thing if it means that?

I don't know all the rules of other countries and do not want reference to the US to make you feel you are excluded. However, I am in the US and in this country freedom of speech is secured by the First Amendment of our Constitution. But what does that really mean?

Does freedom of speech mean there are no consequences to our words?

Do you think a platform that allowed the unfettered commentary about anything in any form would be conducive of fruitful discussion?

I have my own ideas about freedom of speech, but I am curious what others think. Especially in light of recent events regarding disinformation (Russia, politics, Homeland Security) and claims that we will see new ways to express ourselves freely on the internet (Elon Musk).

This is going to be a busy thread, so I'll try to be short and summarize. Freedom of speech is the beachhead that you construct to defend your other rights against the random impositions of governments or other institutions which threaten them. Freedom of speech can be toxic, so it is not an ideal of itself. It is a compromise with toxic speech, and you have to have enough freedom of speech to protect your other rights. How much is enough? That is something you must decide, but it is necessary to let people express what they think and not let them be put into prison merely for disagreement or strange thoughts.

The US supreme court in the last ten years decided that political contributions were a form of speech, recognizing that blocking them would hinder free speech. This was done to protect our rights. I don't particularly know that this is effective in protecting our rights, and in my experience it appears that campaign contributions can drown out my own voice. The goal of allowing campaign contributions is to allow persons such as myself to influence politics, which I can do in small measure by influencing the influencers. A court had to make a determination about what restrictions would best protect my other rights, because it was complicated. The issue of 'How much freedom of speech' is complicated, but we need a lot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just face to face conversation.

But that still has consequences...

I thought there was something I read about some time ago, but I cannot recall the details. I can imagine it to be like some of these political rallies that break down into street fights except virtual.