What is freedom of speech?

[Estro Felino]

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.

Always distinguishing between the average Joe and people who are supposed to be an authoritative source.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

I view anything any leader says as needing to be analyzed, questioned and vetted. It doesn't matter if a person supports these leaders or opposes them. A person should use the skills of critical review with all claims from politicians that they do not already understand.

You cannot threaten them or anyone else for what they say, but certainly a person can question what they say. As to how you decide to exercise your own political power regarding what they say, that is up to you.

In my opinion, they have the same free speech rights as we do, but they have a greater responsibility in what they say and how they say it. A leader's speech has impact that I would normally see as extending further than my own or that of the average citizen. I cannot say I condemn the excited utterance of Biden regarding Putin, but he as well as any leader should be measuring what they say carefully. Other presidents have said things that they should have kept to themselves too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I wonder if that application is really conducive of greater freedom or it just means that communication will break down into constant, useless bickering and unending personal attacks.

It is the respect for others that I have doubts about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

That is some I consider basic to all our freedoms. They come with responsibilities. What I see in practice is a lot of people that appear to view freedoms as an entitlement that they have no responsibilities to.

 

[Estro Felino]

I wonder if that application is really conducive of greater freedom or it just means that communication will break down into constant, useless bickering and unending personal attacks.

Personal opinions can be expressed politely and respectfully.

 

[JustGeorge]

Personal opinions can be expressed politely and respectfully.

They can be, but they often aren't.

 

[Estro Felino]

They can be, but they often aren't.

It is a given that opinions must be expressed respectfully.

Freedom of speech is about tolerance and respect.
I respect others by enabling them to express their opinion, even if I disagree with them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Conspiracy theories have been around for a long time. The problem with them these days is that people don't vet them and they base political decisions on them.

 

[JustGeorge]

It is a given that opinions must be expressed respectfully.

I wish this was so, but I find for every one respectful statement, there are at least three more that aren't respectful at all.

Freedom of speech is about tolerance and respect.
I respect others by enabling them to express their opinion, even if I disagree with them.

What do you do with all the disrespectful speech, then? If all communicated by your standards, I think we'd be good to go, but so many feel 'freedom of speech' also permits offensive and hurtful speech(with no purpose other than insulting those who disagree with them).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It turned out to be a little more than I anticipated, but you are welcome. Seeing the thoughts of others was part of my intention with this thread. Often points that I hadn't considered come up in these discussions and debates. It was my hope to generate some even when I already have some of my own. I am also interested in how many people really understand what it is to have protected speech, what it means and what the authoritative basis is depending on where a person lives.

Written material, even t-shirts and billboards, art, video and much more fall under the free expression of thought. I do not know how all of those are governed with any expertise or any limitations on the form or choice of medium. Maybe others here know more and can shed some light on the subject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It is really about free speech. Here in the US ours is guaranteed by our Constitution. One curiosity I have is how many people here (United States) understand what that actually says. My personal view is that many do not understand it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Personal opinions can be expressed politely and respectfully.

I agree. But that is not often the case in practice.

I wonder about the sustainability of a platform that allows unfettered free speech where a person can be impolite and disrespectful, since that would be free speech too. And not just with bullying and insults, but platforms being overwhelmed with spam and off topic redirection and swamping.

What about the free speech of a person that is mentally ill? How should that be handled to sustain unfettered free speech? How is it handled now?

 

[John53]

I agree. But that is not often the case in practice.

I wonder about the sustainability of a platform that allows unfettered free speech where a person can be impolite and disrespectful, since that would be free speech too. And not just with bullying and insults, but platforms being overwhelmed with spam and off topic redirection and swamping.

What about the free speech of a person that is mentally ill? How should that be handled to sustain unfettered free speech? How is it handled now?

In the old days of fidonet there were flame channels. Ironically it was usually more like friendly banter in them. The real flame wars happened in the serious channels.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think that it was a great disservice to enshrine the rights in the constitution without highlighting that with each right comes with associated responsibilities...for example, to be fair, to be considerate, to let others have their say as well, and so on. Obviously, there can be discussion about those responsibilities. But in my opinion, no right exists without associated responsibilities.

Excellent post, and I agree.

In answer to the OP, I have to say that in my view, freedom of speech means that we all have the right to have our opinions on any matter at all, and to express those opinions. However, that does not protect us against being held accountable if our speech causes harm -- for example, if I yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre in the middle of the show (when in fact there is no fire and I know it), and several people are harmed in the stampede to get to the few exits, then I can and should be held accountable for that.

Note, to the OP question about guaranteeing an audience -- well, no, of course not. You are free to express your opinion, and I am free to ignore it if I don't want to hear it. This is true, by the way, for people who write opinions in the media -- they can tell you what their favourite Republican said, and totally ignore the local Democrat's response, no matter how well that response answered the question. (It is a hallmark of good news reporting, however, to examine both sides of such questions -- but reporting is different from op-ed writing.)

 

[Wildswanderer]

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?

You aren't forced to listen to anyone? Where does that question come from?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No

So then what's your specific issue with Southern being denied entry to the UK?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absolutely.

On what grounds?

 

[Stevicus]

So then what's your specific issue with Southern being denied entry to the UK?

What do you mean "specific issue"? What are you on about now?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What about the free speech of a person that is mentally ill? How should that be handled to sustain unfettered free speech? How is it handled now?

I think that both the mentally ill, and the mentally healthy, can have the potential to say things that shouldn't be said. However, I seem to spend a lot of time reading about psychology myself, and realize that by doing that, that there are mountains of words out there trying sculpt out what those things even mean

Presently for example, I am reading about the positions of augustine as contrasted by that of pelagius - not psychology, but wait a moment - where do you start searching for real objectivity in what either of these characters have said or done?

Take augustine for example. Am I take it for granted as being sane, that a man would stand before an audience, or before a blank scroll, and write out, or verbally express, the uncertain salvation of an infant? It's important, because he would influence a lot of people across time.

I might declare, or not even declare - merely take it for granted, that the man and his actions and thoughts are sane. And, given the religious freedom which our country gives us, I would, if I believed in what he said, think that he led a fully sane and functional life, and that I am sane and functional for presently sharing beliefs he had

Or, I might appeal to what I think is objective (a wrong view, depending on one's religious choice), and declare that if a man spent a mere two minutes of his life, in thinking that the salvation of an infant is uncertain, that this would be an absolutely unproductive, and even insane use of time and energy. Likely, that is what pelagius thought of augustine. And augustine probably thought the same of pelagius - and down through history, right to our time, people have had wildly different perceptions and views, originating from unique and individual minds

So I guess my post is just to show the context that might be required behind the statement in your post - the fact that there has been an extremely wide latitude between views, and how that has to enter the equation

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that both the mentally ill, and the mentally healthy, can have the potential to say things that shouldn't be said. However, I seem to spend a lot of time reading about psychology myself, and realize that by doing that, that there are mountains of words out there trying sculpt out what those things even mean

Presently for example, I am reading about the positions of augustine as contrasted by that of pelagius - not psychology, but wait a moment - where do you start searching for real objectivity in what either of these characters have said or done?

Take augustine for example. Am I take it for granted as being sane, that a man would stand before an audience, or before a blank scroll, and write out, or verbally express, the uncertain salvation of an infant? It's important, because he would influence a lot of people across time.

I might declare, or not even declare - merely take it for granted, that the man and his actions and thoughts are sane. And, given the religious freedom which our country gives us, I would, if I believed in what he said, think that he led a fully sane and functional life, and that I am sane and functional for presently sharing beliefs he had

Or, I might appeal to what I think is objective (a wrong view, depending on one's religious choice), and declare that if a man spent a mere two minutes of his life, in thinking that the salvation of an infant is uncertain, that this would be an absolutely unproductive, and even insane use of time and energy. Likely, that is what pelagius thought of augustine. And augustine probably thought the same of pelagius - and down through history, right to our time, people have had wildly different perceptions and views, originating from unique and individual minds

So I guess my post is just to show the context that might be required behind the statement in your post - the fact that there has been an extremely wide latitude between views, and how that has to enter the equation

I wasn't thinking in terms of trying to identify the quality of a person's content as rational or irrational, but in terms of it adding bulk volume of material to wade through. If there were no controls on content and anyone is free to post as they choose, I find it unlikely that features like ignore would be available to aid in navigating through the content. I have encountered indecipherable material on this forum. Personally, I think that people with mental health issues have the same rights of free speech that I do, but clearly not all have the ability to present their ideas in a comprehensible form. or succinctly. A discussion of free speech may not be the right thread for someone's manifesto or voluminous grievance narrative, for instance.

As to your example, I realize that what one chooses to explore and discuss may not be the same thing that someone else might. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I see that as a different issue than what I was thinking about.