What is freedom of speech?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Look at Trump as an example. People are censoring him left and right out of fear and spite.

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.

It's interesting seeing these comments juxtaposed. Trump seeks a path to tyranny, and his unfettered speech was a threat to democracy. Free speech is an idea that arose in reaction to the British crown suppressing dissent among colonials who felt exploited and underrepresented. At that time, free speech was an asset to those advocating for democracy and a threat to tyrants. Today, it's the other way around.

 

[Brian2]

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).

In Australia re regard freedom of speech as important but there is also debate about what this freedom should entail.
When it comes to insults there is debate about what an insult might be and whether something is an insult just because someone is offended by it.
Our politicians insult each other.
Freedom to spread lies is also on the debate list and nobody wants fake news being spread and wants social media to control that, but it seems, without guidance as to what is fake news, unless social media becomes professional journalism and seeks out just what the truth is so that it might be shut down.
Our politicians seem to be professional liars and spreaders of false and misleading information.
Some people are banned from coming into our country when it is determined that they want to spread hate speech and our media is good at being biased in one direction or another and spreading lies even if it is by not giving a fair and honest coverage of a particular topic.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

well...reading the OP...it is about national constitutions...

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I wasn't sure about the Lauren Southern case, so I did some checking and found this article: Why 3 anti-Islam activists were refused entry to the UK - BBC News

In a statement about the activists, a Home Office spokesperson said: "Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good."

Pettibone, an American, tweeted an image of the letter she says was handed to her by an immigration officer. It states that her planned activities posed "a serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and are likely to incite tensions between local communities in the United Kingdom".

So, it doesn't appear to be a matter of free speech, per se, but more due to a fear that it could incite tensions between local communities.

The letter also cites Sellner's possession of leaflets which referenced "possible violence at his speech" and calls Robinson "a far right leader whose materials and speeches incite racial hatred."

It references "possible violence," but doesn't indicate a clear and present danger.

In Southern's case, apparently there was an incident where she distributed leaflets which she called a social experiment, yet doesn't appear to cross the threshold of "clear and present danger."

Southern says she was questioned under the Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on her political views and her opinion on right-wing terrorism. She tells BBC Trending that she was refused entry on the grounds of her involvement "in the distribution of racist material in Luton".

In February, the Canadian activist displayed flyers saying "Allah is a gay god" outside a restaurant in the town centre. Southern, who has nearly half a million subscribers on YouTube and regularly posts politically charged stunts, says this was part of a "social experiment" video.

Like Pettibone and Sellner, Southern was informed that her actions "present a threat to the fundamental interests of society" by Border Force.

She tells BBC Trending she believes the government has a "political grudge" against Pettibone, Sellner and herself.

"I would hope that [the UK] would be pro-freedom of speech, and support people's right to question Islam, to even have cheeky posters, make jokes and social experiments, to give a speech at Speakers Corner," says Southern.

Another person quoted in the article indicated that the authorities were going after "softer targets."

Nick Lowles, chief executive of the anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate, says there has been a shift in who the UK government considers to be a threat. He says that "during the last two to three years the government has taken a very strong position against hard-line neo-Nazis, extreme Holocaust deniers, banning many who've attempted to enter the UK."

"What's new about the banning of Generation Identity activists such as Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone, and their increasingly alt-right friend Lauren Southern, is that the government has signalled that it's going after 'softer' targets on the hard right," says Lowles.

"These are people who have huge reach on social media, they are peddlers of online hate, and as our recent State of Hate report highlighted, the online reach of right-wing hate preachers can have disastrous consequences."

"The irony is that the far right have long called for the British government to take firm control of our borders. Now they are doing just that."

The activists were prevented from entering the UK at a time of rising concern about far-right violence. Last month, Mark Rowley, the former head of counter-terrorism policing in the UK, warned of the growing threat of far-right terrorism.

"Islamist and right-wing extremism is reaching into our communities through sophisticated propaganda and subversive strategies creating and exploiting vulnerabilities that can ultimately lead to acts of violence and terrorism," he said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look at Trump as an example. People are censoring him left and right out of fear and spite.

Do you think that Trump is entitled to a platform in places like Twitter and Facebook?

 

[Estro Felino]

I wasn't sure about the Lauren Southern case, so I did some checking and found this article: Why 3 anti-Islam activists were refused entry to the UK - BBC News

So, it doesn't appear to be a matter of free speech, per se, but more due to a fear that it could incite tensions between local communities.

It references "possible violence," but doesn't indicate a clear and present danger.
"

Her presence was not conductive to the public good.

Is it juridically acceptable? It is exactly as if a Sicilian court had forbidden a lawyer from giving an anti-mafia speech, because "that would have been not conductive to the public good".
That is...certain criminals would have reacted violently.

Is that acceptable? I don't think so.
I know lawyers who fear nothing, because the State, the judges are on their side.

But the British State was not on Southern's side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't sure about the Lauren Southern case, so I did some checking and found this article: Why 3 anti-Islam activists were refused entry to the UK - BBC News

So, it doesn't appear to be a matter of free speech, per se, but more due to a fear that it could incite tensions between local communities.

It references "possible violence," but doesn't indicate a clear and present danger.

In Southern's case, apparently there was an incident where she distributed leaflets which she called a social experiment, yet doesn't appear to cross the threshold of "clear and present danger."

Do you think that people who don't pose a "clear and present danger" should be entitled to enter countries where they have no citizenship or immigration status?

 

[Stevicus]

Her presence was not conductive to the public good.

Is it juridically acceptable? It is exactly as if a Sicilian court had forbidden a lawyer from giving an anti-mafia speech, because "that would have been not conductive to the public good".
That is...certain criminals would have reacted violently.

Is that acceptable? I don't think so.
I know lawyers who fear nothing, because the State, the judges are on their side.

But the British State was not on Southern's side.

I think when it comes to things like deportation of non-citizens or barring their entry, the government may have more leeway. It might be different if it was British citizens engaging in the same activities on British soil.

On the other hand, Southern is a Canadian citizen, and Canada is within the British Commonwealth. However, I'm not sure how that works in practice. They're not the same country, yet they have the same Queen, so it's kind of weird.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think that people who don't pose a "clear and present danger" should be entitled to enter countries where they have no citizenship or immigration status?

No

 

[Estro Felino]

I think when it comes to things like deportation of non-citizens or barring their entry, the government may have more leeway. It might be different if it was British citizens engaging in the same activities on British soil.

On the other hand, Southern is a Canadian citizen, and Canada is within the British Commonwealth. However, I'm not sure how that works in practice. They're not the same country, yet they have the same Queen, so it's kind of weird.

Unfortunately Tommy Robinson's case makes me doubt that British citizens are "safe" from this juridical drift.

 

[ChristineM]

well...reading the OP...it is about national constitutions...

Let me quote a few phrases from the OP.


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?

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

Elon Musk

Om happy with what i wrote thanks.

 

[ChristineM]

Unfortunately Tommy Robinson's case makes me doubt that British citizens are "safe" from this juridical drift.

I think the Tommy Robinson case you speak of (there are several) was a clear case of hate speech which contravened English law.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think the Tommy Robinson case you speak of (there are several) was a clear case of hate speech which contravened English law.

If you explain it to me in detail, I can understand it.

 

[ChristineM]

If you explain it to me in detail, I can understand it.

You mean you don't understand it? But feel free to cite it... Freedom of speech at work eh?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....31/tommy-robinson-freedom-of-speech-far-right
There are many other reports if you care to look.

 

[Stevicus]

Unfortunately Tommy Robinson's case makes me doubt that British citizens are "safe" from this juridical drift.

I didn't know much about him, so I checked his bio: Tommy Robinson (activist) - Wikipedia

It seems that he has a criminal record, including assault, mortgage fraud, and using a false passport to try to enter the U.S. illegally. It's hard to say whether they're locking him up for hate speech or whether he was considered a menace to society in other aspects.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you think that Trump is entitled to a platform in places like Twitter and Facebook?

Absolutely.

 

[JustGeorge]

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.

I think what would happen in the UK is preferable in this situation.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

This reminds me of a time about 10 years ago, I was at home and heard someone yelling loudly outside. I looked out and this guy was walking down the street yelling profanity and racial slurs at the top of his lungs. There was nobody else around that I could see, but I'm sure others in the neighborhood could have heard him. It was a racially-diverse neighborhood, but it was clear to me that this guy was off his rocker and quite mentally disturbed. This was also close to a mental health clinic and I think there were a couple of other facilities nearby.

Even if they were arrested, it probably would have been treated more as a mental health issue than anything else.

 

[Estro Felino]

Besides, I would like to understand: who decides what disinformation is?

Because so many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.

I think I am very suspicious towards people who want to censor or gag conspiracy theories.
Simply because of this reasoning: the people who take part in conspiracies do anything to make people believe such conspiracies do not exist.

So... I have trouble understanding the psyche of those who want to deny conspiracies a priori.

 

[Stevicus]

Besides, I would like to understand: who decides what disinformation is?

Because so many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.

I think I am very suspicious towards people who want to censor or gag conspiracy theories.
Simply because of this reasoning: the people who take part in conspiracies do anything to make people believe such conspiracies do not exist.

So... I have trouble understanding the psyche of those who want to deny conspiracies a priori.

I don't think they should ban conspiracy theories, as long as they're kept in the realm of speculation and not stated as fact.

It's merely a difference of saying "maybe this might have happened" as opposed to "this did happen."

If someone says "this did happen" when, in fact, it didn't happen, then a retraction or correction might be in order - just as any news organization striving for accuracy would do.

But if someone wanted to censor someone from saying "maybe this might have happened," then that would be going too far.