What is "Freedom of Speech"?

[Dan From Smithville]

Do we have the right to say what we want, when we want, to whom we want, whenever we want? Or is freedom of speech something else?

In a recent thread, freedom of speech was bandied about in much the way that I have seen it used as a shield in many modern conversations, debates and discussions. As if it is some universal law that allows people carte blanche to do as they want and say anything without regard or consequence.

In the United States, the Constitution addresses freedom of speech in the First Amendment that reads as follows.

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:~:text=Congress shall make no law,for a redress of grievances.

This forms the legal basis and establishes the right here in the United States.

What does this mean to you? What is your understanding of the right.

Do other countries have this right or some variation of it? If so, on what basis is it established and how well is it supported?

I placed this thread in Political Debates partly because it is or does touch on that arena and partly because I wasn't sure what location was best to pose this question and encourage engagement. I'm not often interested in political discussions myself, but this idea of free speech and what that means is a very basic right for all that should transcend politics, though I understand that it may mean different things to different people or be used in ways that are inconsistent with common usage. I also know that political debates can get robust. Another reason I was hesitant to place it here, but I think this may be the best place despite those misgivings.

Knowing that such debate can and usually does get robust, I ask and encourage anyone interested in this discussion to exercise due curtesy as much as possible while remembering that criticism of a point is not necessarily a personal attack.

So, what is freedom of speech? What does that right entail and is the claim of it consistent with the legal basis as it often comes up?

 

[John53]

Do we have the right to say what we want, when we want, to whom we want, whenever we want? Or is freedom of speech something else?

In a recent thread, freedom of speech was bandied about in much the way that I have seen it used as a shield in many modern conversations, debates and discussions. As if it is some universal law that allows people carte blanche to do as they want and say anything without regard or consequence.

In the United States, the Constitution addresses freedom of speech in the First Amendment that reads as follows.

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:~:text=Congress shall make no law,for a redress of grievances.

This forms the legal basis and establishes the right here in the United States.

What does this mean to you? What is your understanding of the right.

Do other countries have this right or some variation of it? If so, on what basis is it established and how well is it supported?

I placed this thread in Political Debates partly because it is or does touch on that arena and partly because I wasn't sure what location was best to pose this question and encourage engagement. I'm not often interested in political discussions myself, but this idea of free speech and what that means is a very basic right for all that should transcend politics, though I understand that it may mean different things to different people or be used in ways that are inconsistent with common usage. I also know that political debates can get robust. Another reason I was hesitant to place it here, but I think this may be the best place despite those misgivings.

Knowing that such debate can and usually does get robust, I ask and encourage anyone interested in this discussion to exercise due curtesy as much as possible while remembering that criticism of a point is not necessarily a personal attack.

So, what is freedom of speech? What does that right entail and is the claim of it consistent with the legal basis as it often comes up?

Good question that I can't answer.

The only people who have freedom of speech in Australia is politicians when parliament is sitting and they abuse the privilege frequently.

Infosheet 5 - Parliamentary privilege

Infosheet 5 - Parliamentary privilege

www.aph.gov.au

 

[Stevicus]

Do we have the right to say what we want, when we want, to whom we want, whenever we want? Or is freedom of speech something else?

In a recent thread, freedom of speech was bandied about in much the way that I have seen it used as a shield in many modern conversations, debates and discussions. As if it is some universal law that allows people carte blanche to do as they want and say anything without regard or consequence.

In the United States, the Constitution addresses freedom of speech in the First Amendment that reads as follows.

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:~:text=Congress shall make no law,for a redress of grievances.

This forms the legal basis and establishes the right here in the United States.

What does this mean to you? What is your understanding of the right.

Do other countries have this right or some variation of it? If so, on what basis is it established and how well is it supported?

I placed this thread in Political Debates partly because it is or does touch on that arena and partly because I wasn't sure what location was best to pose this question and encourage engagement. I'm not often interested in political discussions myself, but this idea of free speech and what that means is a very basic right for all that should transcend politics, though I understand that it may mean different things to different people or be used in ways that are inconsistent with common usage. I also know that political debates can get robust. Another reason I was hesitant to place it here, but I think this may be the best place despite those misgivings.

Knowing that such debate can and usually does get robust, I ask and encourage anyone interested in this discussion to exercise due curtesy as much as possible while remembering that criticism of a point is not necessarily a personal attack.

So, what is freedom of speech? What does that right entail and is the claim of it consistent with the legal basis as it often comes up?

I agree with the general idea that we have the freedom to say what we wish, as long as it does not create a clear and present danger. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater - unless there's actually a fire, of course. And of course, there might be other consequences for libel and slander. There's also rules regarding truth in advertising. They were even able to ban cigarette advertising on TV and radio. (I wish they would do that with political ads.)

I also sometimes look at it from the viewpoint of a listener/reader/viewer. If someone is prevented from speaking, or a show is canceled or whatever, then I would feel as if my right to read or watch something has been infringed upon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good question that I can't answer.

The only people who have freedom of speech in Australia is politicians when parliament is sitting and they abuse the privilege frequently.

Infosheet 5 - Parliamentary privilege

Infosheet 5 - Parliamentary privilege

www.aph.gov.au

Interesting. So presumably, ordinary citizens in Australia could be prosecuted for things they say if I read that correctly.

I did find this that sort of summarizes, in a friendly sounding way, what you linked.

Constitutional law protection
The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.
Freedom of information, opinion and expression.

 

[John53]

Interesting. So presumably, ordinary citizens in Australia could be prosecuted for things they say if I read that correctly.

I did find this that sort of summarizes, in a friendly sounding way, what you linked.

Constitutional law protection
The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.
Freedom of information, opinion and expression.

I don't know much about it but there is certain derogatory racial terms that are illegal to use. And there's civil and criminal liability where you can't say something untrue to damage a person (might even apply to organisations but I'm not sure). I only know of one case of criminal libel and that was against a journalist but it was way beyond my understanding. I think there's also a law against hate speech.

 

[John53]

Clear as mud....

Criminal libel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with the general idea that we have the freedom to say what we wish, as long as it does not create a clear and present danger. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater - unless there's actually a fire, of course. And of course, there might be other consequences for libel and slander. There's also rules regarding truth in advertising. They were even able to ban cigarette advertising on TV and radio. (I wish they would do that with political ads.)

I agree. I see freedom of speech as protection from the government and prevention of government from defining, curtailing or suppressing individual expression. This does not mean that I personally don't have a right to suppress free speech in my home or that a business must provide a platform or a place for any speech or expression another wishes.

I also sometimes look at it from the viewpoint of a listener/reader/viewer. If someone is prevented from speaking, or a show is canceled or whatever, then I would feel as if my right to read or watch something has been infringed upon.

In a very real sense it has been prevented but a private is acting on their freedom of expression in the actions taken that deprive you of media you enjoy. It's a give in take for citizens.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know much about it but there is certain derogatory racial terms that are illegal to use. And there's civil and criminal liability where you can't say something untrue to damage a person (might even apply to organisations but I'm not sure). I only know of one case of criminal libel and that was against a journalist but it was way beyond my understanding. I think there's also a law against hate speech.

Rules about what you can't do and isn't considered to be free speech due to the consequences and impact on society. We have that too, but these are special circumstances, like yelling fire in a crowded building as @Stevicus pointed out.

It is sometimes beyond me too, which is part of what prompted this thread. And it wasn't specifically about science or religion. I needed a break.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Clear as mud....

Criminal libel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Near as I can tell, you can't say nasty things about other people that may harm their reputations, livelihood, standing, etc.

I'm curious if there is any legality of how the defamatory information, even if true, was obtained that would cross into the violation of a person's freedom of speech. Perhaps there is someone that views this thread that may know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Infringing on or suppressing free speech doesn't have to come from the government either. Where a person has a reasonable expectation or even a right to speak, another citizen could be guilty of suppression of that person's rights if they try to prevent them from exercising that right where they are legally allowed.

At the same time, we have the right to tell people to shut up. That is an personal expression that doesn't really prevent free speech. The person that is the target of the "shut up" is free to ignore it or act on it by essentially shutting up by mutual consent in a sense. It often seems to be a fine line.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer summarizing established case law or legal interpretation. These are my interpretations and I accept that I could be wrong or my interpretations may be weak.

I'm here to learn a few things as well as exercise my rights within the scope of the rules.

 

[John53]

Infringing on or suppressing free speech doesn't have to come from the government either. Where a person has a reasonable expectation or even a right to speak, another citizen could be guilty of suppression of that person's rights if they try to prevent them from exercising that right where they are legally allowed.

At the same time, we have the right to tell people to shut up. That is an personal expression that doesn't really prevent free speech. The person that is the target of the "shut up" is free to ignore it or act on it by essentially shutting up by mutual consent in a sense. It often seems to be a fine line.

I vaguely remember reading a book by the journo who got charged with criminal libel but I don't remember much about it other than him saying that neither him or his solicitor had ever heard of it.

 

[John53]

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer summarizing established case law or legal interpretation. These are my interpretations and I accept that I could be wrong or my interpretations may be weak.

I'm here to learn a few things as well as exercise my rights within the scope of the rules.

It's an interesting question and I'm hopeful that someone with better knowledge of the topic responds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm a strong believer in decorum, but I also think that sometimes, under the right circumstances or need, that it should be challenged to snap us out of mindless alliance with a perceived status quo. I see such attempts require a little luck and a fair amount of skill to be successful. I do not see wanton disobedience as an useful expression of free speech and I think it occurs more to build up arrogant self-importance than to convey some important message that should be heard.

Dressing like Cruella Deville and acting out isn't done to convey some important message that must be heard, but is done to put on a show and garner accolades for the performer from those that already have all the message they want in my opinion. In such an instance, more damage is done to the public square than to the point or person such a display is intended to deride. I expect my leaders to have that sense and to know when to break it and how to do it effectively without creating a circus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I vaguely remember reading a book by the journo who got charged with criminal libel but I don't remember much about it other than him saying that neither him or his solicitor had ever heard of it.

I'd be interested in more detail on this, but it sounds like he didn't have much of a real defense of his actions based on what you are saying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's an interesting question and I'm hopeful that someone with better knowledge of the topic responds.

Me too.

 

[Estro Felino]

I defend the Napoleonic juridical tradition, coming from the French Revolution.
Which has inspired the Albertine Statute in 1848 and the Italian Constitution of 1948.

The freedom of thought means that everyone is free to think and to create thoughts.
And secondly they are absolutely free to express them.

If these thoughts don't mention any determined person, the freedom of speech is unlimited.
Meaning nobody has the right to prevent you from expressing your thought.
If they prevent it, they violate people's fundamental freedoms.

To conclude: censorship is worthy of totalitarian regimes and of the thought police present in Orwell's 1984.

 

[Ebionite]

So, what is freedom of speech? What does that right entail and is the claim of it consistent with the legal basis as it often comes up?

It depends on how you interpret freedom. According to Black's dictionary of law freedom is equivalent to liberty rather than the absolute freedom of anarchy:

Freedom. The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery. The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. See Liberty.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree. I see freedom of speech as protection from the government and prevention of government from defining, curtailing or suppressing individual expression. This does not mean that I personally don't have a right to suppress free speech in my home or that a business must provide a platform or a place for any speech or expression another wishes.

In a very real sense it has been prevented but a private is acting on their freedom of expression in the actions taken that deprive you of media you enjoy. It's a give in take for citizens.

Well, yes, in private, personal spaces, such as one's home, it would be different. Those are reasonable limits. But on the other hand, if they can't ban junk mail, telemarketers, or door-to-door salespeople, then I can't see how any restrictions on political speech can be justified.

When it comes to businesses who wish to do business with the general public, that might come under a different heading, as we're not talking about someone's private home or personal space. As I see it, if someone wants to do business with the public, they have to take into consideration the public's needs and interests. Just as the FCC requires broadcast stations to "serve the public interest."

Of course, no one would expect a 7-11 owner to operate a message board or offer a soap box for the public to vent, but if they choose to do so, I can't see why they can't be held to reasonable standards of consistency, fairness, and non-discrimination. They don't have to create a platform, but if they choose to do so, then they should be willing to agree to certain standards.

 

[McBell]

Do we have the right to say what we want, when we want, to whom we want, whenever we want? Or is freedom of speech something else?

In a recent thread, freedom of speech was bandied about in much the way that I have seen it used as a shield in many modern conversations, debates and discussions. As if it is some universal law that allows people carte blanche to do as they want and say anything without regard or consequence.

In the United States, the Constitution addresses freedom of speech in the First Amendment that reads as follows.

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:~:text=Congress shall make no law,for a redress of grievances.

This forms the legal basis and establishes the right here in the United States.

What does this mean to you? What is your understanding of the right.

Do other countries have this right or some variation of it? If so, on what basis is it established and how well is it supported?

I placed this thread in Political Debates partly because it is or does touch on that arena and partly because I wasn't sure what location was best to pose this question and encourage engagement. I'm not often interested in political discussions myself, but this idea of free speech and what that means is a very basic right for all that should transcend politics, though I understand that it may mean different things to different people or be used in ways that are inconsistent with common usage. I also know that political debates can get robust. Another reason I was hesitant to place it here, but I think this may be the best place despite those misgivings.

Knowing that such debate can and usually does get robust, I ask and encourage anyone interested in this discussion to exercise due curtesy as much as possible while remembering that criticism of a point is not necessarily a personal attack.

So, what is freedom of speech? What does that right entail and is the claim of it consistent with the legal basis as it often comes up?

The problem I have with this particular topic is all the different ways people think a 'right' entails to them.

For example, some say that the right to freedom of speech means you are to be immune from the consequences of what you say.
We know this is not true given the fact that you can (and should be) held responsible for damages if you yell fire in a crowded building when there is no fire.

Now, going by that example, yes you have the "right" to say whatever you want.
However, you are not immune from the consequences.