What is freedom of speech?

[Altfish]

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

I do not fear free speech but there should be restriction on it especially relating to hatred.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

We are speaking of the possibility of expressing one's political views.

 

[Estro Felino]

I do not fear free speech but there should be restriction on it especially relating to hatred.

It depends on what you mean by hate speech.
Is Lauren Southern's case to be considered a hate speech case?

 

[Altfish]

It depends on what you mean by hate speech.
Is Lauren Southern's case to be considered a hate speech case?

No, but if she held a rally and urged everyone to go and beat up immigrants, then that would be hate speech

 

[Estro Felino]

No, but if she held a rally and urged everyone to go and beat up immigrants, then that would be hate speech

Exactly. That is the definition of hate speech.

But she was banned from UK because of something else. Just because of some leaflets.

 

[Altfish]

Exactly. That is the definition of hate speech.

But she was banned from UK because of something else. Just because of some leaflets.

It depends on her intentions when she arrives here. I suspect she was holding lectures for the racists/xenophobes amongst us. We have enough of those already in the UK, why import more?

 

[Altfish]

Exactly. That is the definition of hate speech.

But she was banned from UK because of something else. Just because of some leaflets.

I don't know enough about it. That video makes a Farage video look fair; who is the woman who kicks it off?

 

[Estro Felino]

It depends on her intentions when she arrives here. I suspect she was holding lectures for the racists/xenophobes amongst us. We have enough of those already in the UK, why import more?

Here it explains it

Far-right YouTuber Lauren Southern banned from the U.K. speaks at European Parliament, spreads narrative of white genocide in South Africa

 

[Nimos]

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).

Its a good question haven't really thought that much about it to be honest

But my initial thoughts are that it is the right for anyone to be free to express his/her opinions regarding political and religious topic without fear of being punished for it.

Disinformation or wrong information will always be a potential part of any debate or discussion, but that shouldn't limit our freedom of speech, but rather we should be made aware of this and be better at demanding facts and evidence for claims made, rather than just accepting them. Obviously this is not always easy, like knowing exactly what is going on in Ukraine etc. But at least we should be on guard against misinformation, whether they are intentionally or not.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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).

Thank you @Dan From Smithville for this thread! I’ve been struggling with the concepts of freedom of speech lately and look forward to reading people’s responses on the subject.

After carefully having read - with solicitor-daughter’s help - how it is classified in law, in a Nordic country where there have recently been serious issues regarding it, I feel most troubled to learn that their laws also class certain acts as expressions of free speech. How can this be? It is so dangerous. Because cannot almost any action then be said to be an expression of “opinion” and thereby protected by “freedom of speech”…?


Humbly
Hermit

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is an excellent point. Often I hear or read about people screaming about their rights, but not one word about their responsibilities. The same thought occurs to me as you point out here.

I was brought up in a culture with both rights and duties. And both categories have limits and are not absolute. So to some it means I am in effect a slave and have no rights un effect. Both all rights and duties are social constructs and have different effects and so far as I can tell there is no objective, absolute or universal way to find the correct version.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

In the UK she'd get a visit from the police, and be warned that she was in breach of various public order offences. Rightly so, I think. My right to free speech should never include the right to intimidate kids or shout abuse at strangers, whether from my front porch, or anywhere else.

As an outsider, I see much to admire about the US constitution, but the First and Second amendments in particular, seem open to all sorts of abuse.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We are speaking of the possibility of expressing one's political views.

Same person - different brain?

 

[John53]

Does freedom of speech mean guaranteed listeners? Does it guarantee us a platform? Does it mean we are forced to listen to someone exercise their freedom? Is not listening, dissenting or setting up rules limiting freedom of speech under certain conditions wrong?

If we have freedom of speech why do we bother with libel laws? Sorry about answering with a question but I'm as flummoxed as you.

 

[Stevicus]

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

I see your point. When leaders or other government officials say things, it has the weight of official authority added to it. This is often why they use official spokespersons, press secretaries, or public relations people who deliver carefully prepared statements. It can be similar with attorneys, corporations, or other large organizations.

On the other hand, in public forums, the average Joe is often held to a different standard of evidence as compared to the US government when it comes to public statements, precisely because governmental statements are given greater weight and corresponding respect. If the government says "There are WMDs in Iraq," that's practically taken as absolute fact by most people, whereas if a peasant says "I think maybe there might have been a conspiracy to assassinate JFK," they get skewered and lambasted as some kind of paranoid nutjob and conspiracy theorist.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

Surely. But you live in a country which is a sovereign, democratic and secular republic, by constitution. And whose constitutional notion of freedom of speech entails that it is an absolute right.
And it cannot be reduced or limited.

 

[Estro Felino]

I see your point. When leaders or other government officials say things, it has the weight of official authority added to it. This is often why they use official spokespersons, press secretaries, or public relations people who deliver carefully prepared statements. It can be similar with attorneys, corporations, or other large organizations.

On the other hand, in public forums, the average Joe is often held to a different standard of evidence as compared to the US government when it comes to public statements, precisely because governmental statements are given greater weight and corresponding respect. If the government says "There are WMDs in Iraq," that's practically taken as absolute fact by most people, whereas if a peasant says "I think maybe there might have been a conspiracy to assassinate JFK," they get skewered and lambasted as some kind of paranoid nutjob and conspiracy theorist.

That is the point. Some people claim that what the average Joe says, has to be censored, as if it dealt with an authoritative source.
They are practically equating him to some press agency or to the UN Secretary General.

 

[Stevicus]

No, but if she held a rally and urged everyone to go and beat up immigrants, then that would be hate speech

That would be considered incitement to violence and would create a clear and present danger, so I have a feeling that would also be prohibited in the U.S. I don't know if it would be officially designated as "hate speech," as that seems to have a wider definition than an overt, direct call for immediate violence.

If someone says "immigrants take our jobs" or "immigrants are a drain on our economy," that might also be considered hate speech under European standards, even if it doesn't create an immediate clear and present danger.

 

[ChristineM]

Surely. But you live in a country which is a sovereign, democratic and secular republic, by constitution. And whose constitutional notion of freedom of speech entails that it is an absolute right.
And it cannot be reduced or limited.

For instance, the Affaire Mila shows that many people would like to jeopardize that right.

Oh, sorry, i thought the thread was about freedom if speech, not national constitutuons

 

[Altfish]

That would be considered incitement to violence and would create a clear and present danger, so I have a feeling that would also be prohibited in the U.S. I don't know if it would be officially designated as "hate speech," as that seems to have a wider definition than an overt, direct call for immediate violence.

If someone says "immigrants take our jobs" or "immigrants are a drain on our economy," that might also be considered hate speech under European standards, even if it doesn't create an immediate clear and present danger.

People say "immigrants take our jobs" or "immigrants are a drain on our economy," every day; if it is just a one-to-one conversation, it is ill informed and xenophobic but not being used to rile up a mob or similar but I wouldn't want it banned.