What is "Freedom of Speech"?

[Estro Felino]

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.

People do not understand the concept: do not do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.

They believe in repression only when the repressed are the others. They are self-indulgent.

If someone says that a horrific catastrophe is coming on day Y, is it the fault of the one who says it, if some gullible people believe in it and take countermeasures?

I think that people should grow up and develop intellectual autonomy. By reading books and studying. Culture opens the minds.

 

[McBell]

If someone says that a horrific catastrophe is coming on day Y, is it the fault of the one who says it, if some gullible people believe in it and take countermeasures?

There are not nearly enough details in your proposed hypothetical for me to render a meaningful answer.

 

[Stevicus]

People do not understand the concept: do not do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.

They believe in repression only when the repressed are the others. They are self-indulgent.

If someone says that a horrific catastrophe is coming on day Y, is it the fault of the one who says it, if some gullible people believe in it and take countermeasures?

I think that people should grow up and develop intellectual autonomy. By reading books and studying. Culture opens the minds.

 

[Estro Felino]

There are not nearly enough details in your proposed hypothetical for me to render a meaningful answer.

For example: a random user on X or on FB says that on a certain day there will be a catastrophe, an apocalypse, so she/he warns people to hide in bunkers.
Is it allowed, in your opinion?

 

[McBell]

For example: a random user on X or on FB says that on a certain day there will be a catastrophe, an apocalypse, so she/he warns people to hide in bunkers.
Is it allowed, in your opinion?

As presented, it is my opinion that it is allowed.

 

[Tamino]

The German Grundgesetz guarantees freedom of speech in paragraph 5.
It includes the freedom of opinion for the individual as well as the freedom of journalism and art. Censorship is prohibited.

This freedom can be limited by laws, to protect children from unsuitable or offensive material and to protect personal honor.

Now, on first glance, that looks rather limited... courts of law can curtail someone's freedom if they can claim libel or offensiveness or some such. But there are some pretty important rules in place to prevent undue limitations: The first 20 paragraphs of our Grundgesetz contain the Grundrechte, the "fundamental rights".
If they want to limit fundamental rights, any law or judicial ruling must carefully explain why the limitation is justified - such as protecting fundamental rights of other people.
Anybody who feels that their fundamental rights have been violated by a law or a decision in court can appeal directly to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the federal constitutional court.

One example: If politician A accuses politician B of unlawful behavior, politician A can be sued for libel and a court will have to decide if the accusation was factually unfounded - in which case Person A is not allowed to say that anymore. His freedom of speech is limited by person B's right to keep their personal honor and not be falsey accused. On the other hand, I can and do call Höcke a Nazi, since the courts have decided that the accusation is not libellous. ( Björn Höcke - Wikipedia )
Another example: Pacifists had used the slogan "Soldaten sind Mörder" - "soldiers are murderers". It was brought into court, and the Verfassungsgericht decided that the statement is protected by freedom of speech: The context made it clear that the pacifists were not accusing any specific person of a crime, but just expressing their opinion against war and armies in general.

 

[icehorse]

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.

I agree with the above and I'd add a few points:

- freedom of speech does not typically guarantee you a platform, so you're not guaranteed to be able to use social media.
- I think we're seeing a dangerous rise (mostly coming from the far left), in creating "hate speech" laws. To me these are almost universally misguided. No one has a right to "not be offended".

- what is usually true about free speech is that if you say something in public that is likely to cause violence - in the moment - that is not legal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I have seen that some people think that since government can't sensor their freedom of speech, that no one can. That is not true at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I don't disagree with the establishment of standards. It is that they can be established that I support as valid. No one has to make an internet forum, but if they do, they should establish standards and have the right to enforce those with members that voluntarily decided to join and agreed they read and understood those standards as part of joining.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree with the above and I'd add a few points:

- freedom of speech does not typically guarantee you a platform, so you're not guaranteed to be able to use social media.
- I think we're seeing a dangerous rise (mostly coming from the far left), in creating "hate speech" laws. To me these are almost universally misguided. No one has a right to "not be offended".

- what is usually true about free speech is that if you say something in public that is likely to cause violence - in the moment - that is not legal.

It was probably a lot easier back when free speech was on a soapbox and freedom of the press involved smaller, less advanced printing presses. Even in countries which banned free speech and free press, it was next to impossible to really control or enforce in any meaningful way. Books and pamphlets can be smuggled. Leaflets can be printed up and handed out or placed clandestinely. If someone wants to get a message out, then they'll find ways of doing so.

I suppose if there were more publicly-owned spaces available to the general public to use, as opposed to having to use private servers and private companies for internet services, social media, etc., that might offer better alternatives. The government could establish such services and guarantee that they will abide by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment may not apply to the private sector, it does apply to government and public property. Users would not have to depend on the good graces of some business owner, but they would be guaranteed free speech by the Constitution of the U.S. The only caveat being that you'd have to verify your ID and attach your real name to whatever you write - but you would have free speech and be able to say what you would be allowed to say if you were on a soap box in public square.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you like. It does not guarantee that people will listen. It does not mean freedom from consequences. It does not mean people won't challenge it.

 

[Bthoth]

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you like. It does not guarantee that people will listen. It does not mean freedom from consequences. It does not mean people won't challenge it.

Nice wisdom.

 

[Balthazzar]

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?

It's our first line of defense and important enough to be listed 1st, followed by the 2nd ... The right to bear arms. The reason being is 1. equal opportunity 2. if we ever turn to a religious type of government, we're venturing into dictatorship and communist type waters with very limited freedoms. 3. If we allow a Christian based government, complete with Christian biased laws, the only thing stopping \other religious groups from doing the same is amendment 1 and 2. Taking away freedom of speech would be one of the tactics utilized to disrupt, confuse, and limit a democratic state from being effective, making citizen voices, needs, wants, etc. a thing of the past. Communication is essential for our type of government to operate effectively. Communism doesn't appeal to me, nor does socialism, nor any type of dictatorship.

Although freedom of speech has a way of stirring things up, it's also essential for citizen involvement in how our nation is ran. Take that away and we're all frucked.