What is freedom of speech?

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

It seemed like a nice idea. Clearly, I wasn't thinking about some of the political issues that haunt some people. I was just wanting a nice discussion about freedom of speech, to highlight some misconceptions I know of and to learn something to assuage my own.

But I suppose that its being such a busy topic is noteworthy as an example that we do have freedom of speech and that we must follow rules here is indicative of some of the limitations that people don't often seem to recognize or understand.

I agree. We need lots especially in respect to our government and to those that would curtail it where they have no real authority to do so.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Parler was opened to be a sort of wild west platform, but they soon realized doing that opened up too cans or worms and they started making rules. And trump's Truth Social has been a failure thus far. Offensive people need an audience of decent people.

 

[SomeRandom]

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).

To be quite honest (and I myself fell into this same trap a few years back) people can often attach themselves so wholly to the idea of “freedom of speech” that they fail to even consider nuance or legitimately truly think through what it actually means in practice.

Australia has, believe or not, roughly the same level of freedom of speech the US does. (I know, so shocking that outside the US countries can be just as free.)

The government can’t compel you to say something you disagree with. You can say whatever the hell you want on your own property without the government shutting you down.

But what does that mean in practice? I mean truly?
Let’s take an extreme example.
If I were parading up and down the street with a sign that had obscenities written on it, maybe even slurs, that is exercising my right to free speech. But if my conduct is disruptive or is otherwise causing a scene, private businesses on said street can absolutely call the police on me. It is disruptive behaviour which is against the law. Is such an act censorship of my opinion?
Technically I guess. But I also breached a caveat in the law, meaning I crossed a line and it became more than just a free speech issue.

People like to cry censorship if a social media platform takes down or even bans them for something they said/wrote. But every single one of those, Facebook, Tik Tok, Twitter etc are privately owned businesses. They are not under any legal obligation to give people a platform, not even in the US, as is my understanding. They can choose their terms of service and they can absolutely yeet someone from said platform at their own discretion (usually if it hurts their bottom line, let’s be real here.)
You can cry censorship if you like, but at the end of the day, you went onto a privately owned platform and violated their own in house rules. You have to accept the consequences on the chin. No one forced you to use said service, no one held a gun to your head, right?
A bar may legally refuse to serve an unruly or even just a very rude and abusive customer. That’s on the customer though, not the business. Same rules apply on social media as far as I’m concerned

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Parler was opened to be a sort of wild west platform, but they soon realized doing that opened up too cans or worms and they started making rules. And trump's Truth Social has been a failure thus far. Offensive people need an audience of decent people.

As I understand it, even Trumps platform has rules.

I was a longtime, frequent member of a now defunct forum that had rules, but enforcement was pretty weak to many times nonexistent. It was a wild free-for-all at times. I know one participant that had over 20 identifiable socks. Even I did things there that would have gotten me banned almost immediately upon my arrival were I to try those things here. And I was one of the more civil (well more often than not) participants. It did not start out that way, but it seems that regulation gradually degraded over time. It was no longer a place for the free exchange of ideas. More the free exchange of insults and home to thin-skinned stalkers that were triggered as much by imagined insult as by real insult. By the time I left, many people worth talking to were already moved on.

It does indeed seem that even with freedom of speech, we need to be reminded of our responsibilities through the mechanism of rules that place reasonable limits on that speech so that all have a place to present their ideas.

 

[Viker]

Freedom of speech isn't a license for slander, libel or threats. It is about expressing concerns, grievances and opinion.

If someone were isolating and then berating another they aren't exercising free speech... they're being a punk bully.

 

[F1fan]

As I understand it, even Trumps platform has rules.

No socialist snowflakes?

I was a longtime, frequent member of a now defunct forum that had rules, but enforcement was pretty weak to many times nonexistent. It was a wild free-for-all at times. I know one participant that had over 20 identifiable socks. Even I did things there that would have gotten me banned almost immediately upon my arrival were I to try those things here. And I was one of the more civil (well more often than not) participants. It did not start out that way, but it seems that regulation gradually degraded over time. It was no longer a place for the free exchange of ideas. More the free exchange of insults and home to thin-skinned stalkers that were triggered as much by imagined insult as by real insult. By the time I left, many people worth talking to were already moved on.

Discipline of mind is like being able to use critical thought, it requires learning skills.

It does indeed seem that even with freedom of speech, we need to be reminded of our responsibilities through the mechanism of rules that place reasonable limits on that speech so that all have a place to present their ideas.

What gets me about the Constitution and the rights it lays out is how the writers had extensive education and were avid thinkers. What they wrote was often pretty broad, like the 2nd Amendment, and much of the meanings were understood from an intellectual and educated mind. I see many interpretations of the Constitution, like the 1st and 2nd, mangled by selfish and narrow interpretations. This kind of devolution of thought and meaning is what worries me about the future.

 

[Stevicus]

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).

I believe that every individual has the absolute right to say whatever is on their mind, as long as it doesn't cross the threshold of incitement or creating a clear and present danger. If there's any doubt or gray area, I believe we should err on the side of free speech. As long as the right is honored and enforced equally across all sectors, then the public should be able to avail themselves and decide for themselves what they're going to believe and what they're not going to believe.

The internet has been full of misinformation from its inception, so if people are that hellbent on wanting to be misinformed/disinformed, they will find a way to do it. And Musk only bought Twitter. He didn't buy the entire internet.

I would like to see some kind of forum in which the lines of communication can be kept open, as I think that public discussion about numerous issues of conflict should come about, rather than entrenched internet fortresses with their own echo chambers. We need to be able to talk and discuss our differences, but it seems there is a failure to communicate (as Strother Martin would say). But maybe it's too late for that; I can't say.

What's really happening, at least as far as what I can, is that there's a clash of values and conflicts over perceptions and beliefs. Those are probably irreconcilable, for a variety of reasons, so they probably don't even want to try. Instead, they bicker over the flotsam, the surface-level "junk" that becomes the focus of their argument of the day.

Disinformation would not nearly be as much of a problem if not for the overall media taking a "National Enquirer" approach to serious events. I don't blame them entirely, as some of it seems to have self-generated from the internet culture itself, where everybody and his mother have set up their own "news site" which chips away bit by bit at the profit margins of the major newspapers. They're getting desperate and putting up paywalls, trying to grub for whatever bit of spare change anyone can send them in exchange for being able to read their news stories.

But there are plenty of sites willing to offer the news for free.

 

[We Never Know]

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).

Freedom of speech or freedom of anything ultimately comes down to this....

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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

My question is, what is the official position that an american civilian should have regarding a specific kind of speech - that which is used by our leaders which could have broader implications. And on that point alone, am I allowed to say, or think, that such is the case? When biden called for the regime change against another nuclear armed leader, concurrent with that other leader's current disposition - which apparently is to be hotly active with mass violence - is that responsible? Because what if that stokes the said leader to become more unhinged?

I believe that they probably want me not question the speech of our leader, ideally. But again, think about how much weight the speech of any leader has, compared to the speech that I have. And so then, how much more responsibility do they technically have, than I have, with the speech that I have?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As long as the right is honored and enforced equally across all sectors, then the public should be able to avail themselves and decide for themselves what they're going to believe and what they're not going to believe.

And so then, what do you think about my above comment - about the clear division between the speech of the lower public, be they from anywhere really, and the higher speech of leaders? Leaders, kings or ministers, always had speech that did things, that 'moved mountains,' that made the great technical political changes. And they always had enormous latitude with their speech. Their speech always had the lion's share of the implications for those under them, for those that were 'ordinary.'

As for me, the common peasant, well yes of course, there are things I shouldn't say, and I don't say those things. But as to much of it, it has no grand social implication. In other words, who really cares what the average person believes. Who cares what I think. I have a ton of posts talking about what I think, and there sit, there they rot. They don't change policy. No one cares if I worship the oak tree in my front yard, or if I make a 70,000 character post on astrology

Leaders say things that generally can change social policy, and can affect the economy, and raise or lower world tension. How many times have they talked about the size of their armies, or the life-altering technologies they might build, or property rights, or the flow of money to where it is or isn't needed. Speech, words, in their case, can materialize directly into selecting what kind of future becomes history, for you, for them, for all of us

 

[Estro Felino]

To me as a jurist, freedom of speech is exclusively the freedom of speech that exists within the territory of my country.
An unlimited freedom of speech, via article 21 of the Constitution , which states:
Anyone has the right to freely express their opinion in speech, in writing or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any form of authorization or censorship.

The jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation has stated that this right includes the right to use very harsh language to criticize religions, ideologies, political parties, etc...

The Court of Cassation distinguishes between abstract things and people.
An abstract thing like a religion or a political ideology is not a person.
If someone calls a religion a bad name, they can do it because a religion is not a person, it has no feelings. No feelings, no hedonic damage.
So...it is a really, really unlimited freedom of speech.

Ergo...I really don't care if another country has a more limited freedom of speech than my country.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What's really happening, at least as far as what I can, is that there's a clash of values and conflicts over perceptions and beliefs. Those are probably irreconcilable, for a variety of reasons, so they probably don't even want to try.

Yeah exactly. We should probably recognize some quality of your statement as basic tenet, really. I have seen clearly, I think, in my 36 years, that the perceptions between different people simply do not line up. That does not mean that different people cannot function, even in concert . They can. But you will never see a world where the perceptions of different actors line up entirely

 

[Estro Felino]

As for Twitter, since I live in a country with unlimited freedom of speech, I cannot be limited by a social platform whose headquarters are in a country allegedly called "the land of the free".

I hope Elon Musk restores this motto...the land of the free means land of the free.
Which means that anyone can say whatever they like...even that horses can fly.

Of course always by respecting other people, and above all respecting their opinions.
My freedom entails that I also have to respect other people and their freedom.
So the form is to be respectful and polite.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.,

Only in the United States.
Because in the US they have a broad notion of "hate speech".

In Italy such decision taken by the employer is null and void via article 18 of the Statute of the Workers. Which says that in case of unjust dismissal, the worker has the right to be adequately compensated.

Also because, the employer here will never use Facebook posts as cause of dismissal.
He would lose the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in the United States.
Because in the US they have a very biased and broad notion of "hate speech".

In Italy such decision taken by the employer is null and void via article 18 of the Statute of the Workers. Which says that in case of unjust dismissal, the worker has the right to be adequately compensated.

Also because, the employer here will never use Facebook posts as cause of dismissal.
He would lose the case.

Actually it has far more to do with the rights of the employer. Employers here tend to have more rights than employers in Europe. One can be fired for almost anything if an employer wnats to.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As for Twitter, since I live in a country with unlimited freedom of speech, I cannot be limited by a social platform whose headquarters are in a country allegedly called "the land of the free".

But apparently it is not.

I hope Elon Musk restores this motto...the land of the free means land of the free.
Which means that anyone can say what they like...even that horses can fly.

Of course always by respecting other people, and above all respecting their opinions.
My freedom entails that I also have to respect other people and their freedom

Well we know Eloi Musk's ideas as to freedom of speech - the right to slander someone with the paedophile slur simply because he annoyed Musk in some way - and given that his wealth would insulate him from any further consequences.

 

[Sedim Haba]

(no one yet so I will)

"Freedom of speech is yelling Theater in a crowded fire..."

 

[ChristineM]

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).

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility
I.e. Say whatever you want but hold responsibility for you words and accept the conciquences.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If a person has that much fear from speech, then a free country is not for that person.

Could you elaborate?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(no one yet so I will)

"Freedom of speech is yelling Theater in a crowded fire..."

With freedom comes responsibility. That yelling fire in a crowded theater thing actually did happen if I recall correctly and people were needlessly hurt.