Where I sit on freedom of speech (poll)

[lewisnotmiller]

To me, it should be largely unfettered. Second choice in the poll.
This doesn't mean I support much of the crap that people feel the need to spew. My mother tried hard to instill a sense of politeness in me, and for the most part she succeeded.

But what I LIKE doesn't factor into what I want LEGISLATED.

I don't want someone standing on a street corner saying all Muslims/Atheists/Christians/Jews/Pagans should be shot, and I want that to be legislated against, but ONLY because of the direct call to violence (0 to do with religion).
I don't want someone standing in the proverbial theatre and shouting 'FIRE' and I do want that legislated against because of the direct potential for accidental violence this causes.
I don't want someone yelling 'BOMB' in the airport and am happy with legislation for similar reasons.
I don't want people saying atheists are Godless, evil, and causing the ruin of society, but I also don't want that legislated against. Killing those discussions seems far less beneficial to society than having them.

But remember, if you spout that sort of crap, I also reserve the right to call it crap and come back at you.

1. Supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean agreeing with what is said.

2. Freedom of speech doesn't mean people aren't entitled to come back at you. I never understand people who shout racist crap, than claim 'PC Police' when called on it. Are they for freedom of speech or not? If they are, then talk the issue. But anyways...I digress...

(For what it's worth, my views are possibly slightly more liberal than the country/society I live in - Australia - but only slightly)

 

[Sunstone]

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone for all other freedoms, including freedom of religion. This is often over-looked or ignored by those who call for it to be limited in cases of "disrespectful" speech.

 

[Riverwolf]

Pretty much same, #2. Speech that is socially unacceptible doesn't mean it is legally punishable, and most certainly shouldn't be unless it can cause direct, measurable harm (such as active calls for violence, or yelling "fire" in a crowded building).

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone agrees with me so far (2nd choice).
Something's wrong.

I'm all for free speech, but.....
- No exhorting others to do illegal things.
- The speaker is liable in tort for slander & libel.

 

[Sunstone]

To me, it should be largely unfettered. Second choice in the poll.
This doesn't mean I support much of the crap that people feel the need to spew. My mother tried hard to instill a sense of politeness in me, and for the most part she succeeded.

But what I LIKE doesn't factor into what I want LEGISLATED.

I don't want someone standing on a street corner saying all Muslims/Atheists/Christians/Jews/Pagans should be shot, and I want that to be legislated against, but ONLY because of the direct call to violence (0 to do with religion).
I don't want someone standing in the proverbial theatre and shouting 'FIRE' and I do want that legislated against because of the direct potential for accidental violence this causes.
I don't want someone yelling 'BOMB' in the airport and am happy with legislation for similar reasons.
I don't want people saying atheists are Godless, evil, and causing the ruin of society, but I also don't want that legislated against. Killing those discussions seems far less beneficial to society than having them.

But remember, if you spout that sort of crap, I also reserve the right to call it crap and come back at you.

1. Supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean agreeing with what is said.

2. Freedom of speech doesn't mean people aren't entitled to come back at you. I never understand people who shout racist crap, than claim 'PC Police' when called on it. Are they for freedom of speech or not? If they are, then talk the issue. But anyways...I digress...

(For what it's worth, my views are possibly slightly more liberal than the country/society I live in - Australia - but only slightly)

What do you think about restricting speech on the grounds that (1) the speech offends and (2) offense constitutes psychological harm?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What do you think about restricting speech on the grounds that (1) the speech offends and (2) offense constitutes psychological harm?

Nope.
Without too much extrapolation, it is a slippery slope.

To flesh that out a little...
What someone finds harmful from a psychological background is typically the result of prior exposure to behaviours and incidents.
The 'final' speech causing the 'psychological harm', even if that is truly established, is just the straw the broke the camel's back. It is part of the reason for the harm, but should it be judged more harshly than the speeches and actions which occurred previously?

I would say that I could envisage making some exceptions to protect children from verbal bullying at school, and I am also okay with rules around specific workplace bullying. I am more pragmatist than idealist, I am afraid.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's impossible to legislate not to offend because we are all human and what offends one doesn't offend another. All that I feel we can do is teach courtesy in schools so that people can learn to express their view openly and frankly but with courtesy. There is nothing wrong with courteous criticism. I don't feel if we are articulate then we need to use abusive or insulting language so educating people to be articulate and courteous and polite then there is no need to worry about freedom of speech.

Moderation and tolerance are what the Baha'i Teachings say with regards to speech

 

[dgirl1986]

As a member of a minority group that is on the receiving end of a lot of verbal and physical violence/inciting...I feel that allowing people to say whatever they want whenever they want to whoever they want is dangerous.

 

[Mycroft]

To me, it should be largely unfettered. Second choice in the poll.
This doesn't mean I support much of the crap that people feel the need to spew. My mother tried hard to instill a sense of politeness in me, and for the most part she succeeded.

But what I LIKE doesn't factor into what I want LEGISLATED.

I don't want someone standing on a street corner saying all Muslims/Atheists/Christians/Jews/Pagans should be shot, and I want that to be legislated against, but ONLY because of the direct call to violence (0 to do with religion).
I don't want someone standing in the proverbial theatre and shouting 'FIRE' and I do want that legislated against because of the direct potential for accidental violence this causes.
I don't want someone yelling 'BOMB' in the airport and am happy with legislation for similar reasons.
I don't want people saying atheists are Godless, evil, and causing the ruin of society, but I also don't want that legislated against. Killing those discussions seems far less beneficial to society than having them.

But remember, if you spout that sort of crap, I also reserve the right to call it crap and come back at you.

1. Supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean agreeing with what is said.

2. Freedom of speech doesn't mean people aren't entitled to come back at you. I never understand people who shout racist crap, than claim 'PC Police' when called on it. Are they for freedom of speech or not? If they are, then talk the issue. But anyways...I digress...

(For what it's worth, my views are possibly slightly more liberal than the country/society I live in - Australia - but only slightly)

I can't answer the poll. You didn't stipulate whether we're talking about Legal Right, or Moral Accountability.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can't answer the poll. You didn't stipulate whether we're talking about Legal Right, or Moral Accountability.

Fair point. I meant Legal Right in terms of the poll, but feel free to comment on both.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As a member of a minority group that is on the receiving end of a lot of verbal and physical violence/inciting...I feel that allowing people to say whatever they want whenever they want to whoever they want is dangerous.

It is, and thanks for your contribution.
I guess for me it's the balance of that versus the damage done by restricting speech. Easier to take the idealistic view when you're a white male.

 

[Mycroft]

Fair point. I meant Legal Right in terms of the poll, but feel free to comment on both.

Legally it should be 100% Unfettered. But - as I say nearly every week on these forums - one must be prepared to be held accountable to what they say. And being asked to be held accountable to what one says is not the same as being stripped of the legal right to say it.

 

[dgirl1986]

It is, and thanks for your contribution.
I guess for me it's the balance of that versus the damage done by restricting speech. Easier to take the idealistic view when you're a white male.

When it results in violence and discrimination, it is a problem.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When it results in violence and discrimination, it is a problem.

Yep, honestly, I understand your point. I guess I have my doubts as to whether speech restriction is as effective as open discussion in improving that situation, but I totally get what you mean, and why you hold your position.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Unfederalated. States change and I don't want them to be telling me what I can and cannot talk about. Most anti free speech legislation would be very vague and allow law enforcement to twist them to their will.

Just for clarification, you're okay with yelling 'Fire' in a theatre?

I've heard a wrinkle on this that's interesting, might run it by you...
I have heard some state that yelling 'Fire' in the theatre in and of itself should be no crime, but that the yeller would become liable if a stampede DID occur...
Any thoughts?

 

[Skwim]

I go along with Freedom of speech in the United States as protected by the First Amendment, including most of the following exceptions

• 5 Exclusions
  • 5.1 Inciting imminent lawless action
  • 5.2 Fighting words
  • 5.3 True threats
  • 5.4 Obscenity
  • 5.5 Child pornography
  • 5.6 Torts
    • 5.6.1 Defamation
    • 5.6.2 Invasion of privacy
  • 5.7 Political spending
    • 5.7.1 Campaign contributions
    • 5.7.2 Independent political expenditures
  • 5.8 Government speech
  • 5.9 Public employee speech
  • 5.10 Student speech
  • 5.11 National security
    • 5.11.1 Military secrets
    • 5.11.2 Inventions
    • 5.11.3 Nuclear information
    • 5.11.4 Weapons
    SOURCE

 

[Laika]

Voted "Other", as I have a deeply conflicted, unstable and self-contradicting position. I find it hard to differinate the legal right to free speech from the moral ability to do so. For that reason I would apply to myself a very restrictive standard on what I can and cannot say. As a person, I would endevour not to be offensive, whilst the same time talking about violence openly and bluntly (as that is the only way to fairly discuss the nature of violence).

I think too often there is a taboo on the subject of political and religious violence which is simply reduced to ridicule and demonisation whereas its advocates- as uncomfortable as such discussions can be- need to be heard inorder to educate people about it and to hopefully dismiss there position. the moment you start to talk about violence as happening to real people and not in the abstract- people's reactions change significantly. I think that overall, that is a good thing as too often we we feel comfortable with wars, dictatorships, etc happening to "someone else" when we should really be paying attention.

More recently I've had to reconsider whether we need "offensive" speech as self-censorship simply represses the racist, sexist, homophobic, etc ideas and a free discussion in order to get people to change their ideas. free discussion may be a better means to achieve "thought reform", but because of my sympathy with the goal of the latter, I don't agree with coercive methods though but it is a question of degrees of coercion to when we are dealing with "extremist" speech. too often the notion of free speech simply breakd down at the fringes as it stretches the boundaries of what we can or cannot tolerate. it means I'm not comfortable simply picking sides whether I am for or against free speech. free speech is a value in its own right and has to be defended from its opponents- often necessitating restrictions on speech.

So I'm "not sure". the question of how societies deal with extremism is too complicated and its not a yes or no answer. On the one hand, yes, we need the liberty for people to say what they want, but on the other too much or too little tolerance is destructive to free speech in the long-term. so I don't have a consistent position on it.

Edit: If I put it really simply; yes- you need free speech with few legal restrictions to the point of their being almost none, but you also need large and effective organisations to counter extremism (assuming they can). tolerance is a value that has to be actively defended and asserted not simply written in the law.

 

[Mycroft]

Let me posit to you, for the moment, the idea that there can be no such thing as freedom of speech. It simply does not, and cannot, exist.

There is a 'given range of speech' both individually and collectively, but not 'free' speech.

Our words are, generally, formed by thoughts. What we say is a function of what we're thinking. But you can't have freedom of thought, so you can't have freedom of speech either.

The reason you can't have freedom of thought is that everything you think and feel is as a result of the experiences and influences you've accumulated over your life time from your environment. The Media, Literature, Entertainment, School, Your Parents, Your Friends, your Subcultures (ie: Religion), direct environmental experiences (you were once, for example, traumatised when the cat dropped a savaged bird onto the kitchen floor), fortunes, misfortunes, loss, tragedy, gain, etc. etc. etc. All of these things make up your value systems, your personality (to a large degree), your behaviour (to a large degree) and, basically, they all influence what and how you think.

Cumulatively all of this generates your frame of reference. And your frame of reference is limited.

If you went to a chieftain of an uncontacted tribe and said: 'What do you wish for? Choose anything. In the whole wide world, whatever you want, you can have.' He is not going to choose a BMW, a villa in spain and an offshore banking account filled with unmarked dollars. He simply can't because all of those things are outside of his frame of reference. What he will do is choose something like a better harvest, sharper spears, a better witch doctor, a cure for a particular disease that plagues that tribe. He will do so because those things are within his frame of reference.

Our frames of reference may be greater, but they're still limited. You can't, for example, think about new methods of ion propulsion in space unless you have the background and knowledge for that. You can't, again, think about a new design for a room-temperature superconducting artificial intelligence unit because, again, that is wholly outside of your frame of reference. And because of this, you can't speak about these things either. Your speech is limited in so many areas.

So if you can't think freely. Then you can't speak freely.

Food for thought!

 

[LuisDantas]

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone for all other freedoms, including freedom of religion. This is often over-looked or ignored by those who call for it to be limited in cases of "disrespectful" speech.

This, exactly.

 

[Jiddanand]

Freedom of speech is to let speak.