Freedom of speech - what does it mean to you?

Silverstorm said:
Whos to say when its good natured and not--If it harms a person that is described by the speech? Curious why hate speech (I'm considering this type of 'speech' to differ from country to country) is entirely subjective when meanings are placed in language expressing subjective thoughts, or why something subjective in this case does not become objectively created in other instances. Wouldn't it be a somewhat/most of time instead of entirely?

KiddoUnow said:
So many free speech haters in this tread. I bet if government censored left wingers you would be up and arms. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, there is no such thing as hate speech. And for people that say freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences you're just wrong it absolutely does.

Take North Korea for example sure you can say what ever you want the only problem is somethings you're only be able to say once before they off you. So does North Korea has a freedom of speech?

Gan_water said:


Because liberals will accuse you of this almost entirely unfairly. Creating a controversy where there is none.

FacelessVixen said:
The "freedom" to say whatever you want, and also the "freedom" to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Legally, freedom of speech only really applies to government institutions. Anywhere else: "Talk shit, get hit."

Sphinxter said:
Some jurisdictions have significant indirect protection from employers simply because they severely restrict to what extend an employee can be released for what he did not do during working hours.

As long as I'm clear enough saying "these opinions are my own and don't repræsent the company I work for" I can't be fired for giving my opinion on facebook unless that opinion can be construed as a call to violence and the standard of such constructions in practice extremely unobjectively applied.

deg said:


thats interesting since there in USA i see news saying some of the Alt-Right got fired from their jobs because of what political posts they put on social media

but ye i often read that kind of disclaimer saying "my opinions are my own and not the company i work with"

traed said:
It's pretty meaningless really since so many define it differently. So many are dishonest about their views either to others or themselves too. If someone says they are for absolutely free totally unregulated freedom of speech while wanting things like libel and slander against them to have legal repercussions or wanting actual child pornography to be illegal they are being dishonest.

I think freedom of artistic expression and freedom of opinion and self autonomy are more meaningful than free speech which is far too vague.

deg said:
@YossaRedMage

you can advocate for social media to become a public utility

For example, regulation may be needed to protect freedom of speech against risks such as Internet censorship and deplatforming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility#Individual_level

Sphinxter said:
Nigger, steal not my shit and material. It's very important for my superiority complex that inferior men such as yourself be not capable of even approaching my great thoughts and yet here you do.

traed said:


Fite me.....

I didn't even read your initial post since i didn't feel like replying to anyone since this thread has gone on a while now.

Peaceful_Critic said:
Freedom of speech is defined as the freedom of expressing opinions:

"the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."

"the legal right to express one's opinions freely"

Peaceful_Critic said:
That's still an opinion. It's just a really stupid and wrong one. However, that 100% falls under here:
"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

They formed a view on the Holocaust, saying that it didn't happen which wasn't based on fact or knowledge.

Peaceful_Critic said:
Conspiracy theories such as that clearly don't fall under fact. They are untrue. So what would you label them? I'm pretty sure they are closer to opinions, as they are under the belief that history teachers lied to them.

Kyotosomo said:
Extremely important human right for countless reasons, I could spend all day listing them off. But the gist of it all is that no matter who you are no matter what you say (no matter how awful or great you are or what you're saying is); you have the right to say it. And not only should the government not be able to suppress your right to freedom of speech, but private companies shouldn't be able to suppress it either (like what these social media companies are doing). I'm very big on the first amendment it, is so crucially important to society. Yet, that being said, I think we also need MUCH stronger defamation laws and endangerment laws. It is ridiculously hard to sue someone for abusing their freedom of speech and if you abuse your freedom of speech to knowingly spread lies about somebody or rallying people to hurt somebody; you deserve to get the shit sued out of you either for a ton of money or resulting in you getting jail time. Abusing your freedom of speech to intentionally and significantly hurt others with nothing but malicious intent is disgusting and it's a fucking joke how impossibly hard it is right now to sue someone for this shit. Also, if we made it easier, rather than fascistly banning people off their platforms, instead social media companies could sue to rightfully remove hateful figures off their platforms (like say the whole Alex Jones thing, obviously he's a piece of crap but they should have had to prove the conspiracy theories he was spreading were causing tangible harm which they were but still it should be proven).

Sphinxter said:
"Consequences" in this case obviously means "social consequences" not legal ones.

A man is obviously free to dislike those that say whatever he disagrees with or finds repugnant as long as the state does not criminally sanction it.

And I will continue to say that almost no one supports actual "free speech"; I don't; I support "freedom of expression of opinion" — free "speech" would include the freedom of slander, death threats, leaking personal and/or classified information, breaking an n.d.a., shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, perjury andsoforth.

All those things mentioned however are not opinions and not covered by the concept of "freedom of expression of opinion"; I believe a man should be legally allowed to voice any opinion he might have with no limits but governments should be able to criminally sanction in various cases the statement of provable falsehoods or leaking personal information.

Sphinxter said:
No, it's a superset of that and also includes speech that aren't opinions.

For instance holocaust denial is not covered under freedom of expression of opinion — though I still believe it should be legal — simply because it's not an opinion; it is covered under freedom of speech however.

Peaceful_Critic said:
That's still an opinion. It's just a really stupid and wrong one. However, that 100% falls under here:
"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

They formed a judgment on the Holocaust, saying that it didn't happen which wasn't based on fact or knowledge.

Xstasy said:
I think that freedom of speech is very important. I also think that all ideas should be allowed to be discussing in the public regardless how some people might feel about them after all exposing bad ideas is how progress and change is made, otherwise you 're only going to create closet echo chamber communities which are far more dangerous in comparison.

Big social media giants that have a monopolies shouldn't be allowed to censor and deplatform people because of their political views, ideally their should be some regulation in place that prevent this behaviour.

I don't like where things are heading in the future with all this censorship and power that these corporations wild. Just take look at the terrifying Chinese social surveillance credit system(someone was a fan of psycho pass there) that may become our reality if things don't change.
It seems to me that those people in power mistaken 1984 by George Orwell as a manual and not as a cautionary tale.

China's Dystopian Social Credit system

Peaceful_Critic said:
Sphinxter and I did agree with the 1st part:
"...it is covered under freedom of speech, however."-#73
while I was arguing that it did fall under as an opinion which was my justification as to why it was protected.

I'm not sure about the outrage point either. I didn't see either of Sphinxter's or my posts as that hostile towards them.

Peaceful_Critic said:
ah, okay, my mistake.filling up the 30 character limit

KiddoUnow said:
So many free speech haters in this tread. I bet if government censored left wingers you would be up and arms. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, there is no such thing as hate speech. And for people that say freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences you're just wrong it absolutely does.

Take North Korea for example sure you can say what ever you want the only problem is somethings you're only be able to say once before they off you. So does North Korea has a freedom of speech?

hazarddex said:


that's an obvious strawman.

social consequences of people not wanting to associate there platform with peoples who's rhetoric they don't agree with or people not wanting to be friends with you anymore because your dogma. Is very different then the government or people murdering you for your opinion.

if you call your boss a dumbass he is allowed to fire you. if your being an ass to your fellow coworkers the boss is and should be allowed to fire you.

if your going to be an ass on some one else's platform or in some one else's shop they can and should be able to kick you out.

to takes this away from people right to not associate with another persons idealoges is in fact to take away a freedom from those people.

in short your a hypocrite.

in fact the idea of absolute freedom in itself is hypocritical.

Bayek said:
Who exactly gets to decide what those social consequences are? At what point are the consequences disproportionate to what's being said? Should you lose your job for posting on FB that you prefer Biblical marriage (see Chik Fil-A)? Is it reasonable to be ousted from an entire political party for simply mentioning that AIPAC is a lobby group that prioritizes Israel's interests first and foremost?

The idea that only the government can be tyrannical and abusive is outdated. Private companies and the will of the people have now proven themselves to be just as restricting.

hazarddex said:

why do you think there needs to be a singular ruler of who gets to do what?

it's unfortunate that that happened, but in my eyes they didn't do anything "wrong."the person's views were going to cause negativity at the work place. if i was in there shoes they wouldn't even need to fire me i would just leave on my own. would you rather enforce a toxic work place to the point of people murdering each other over built up aggression of snide comments and back biting?

your implying i support the idea of political parties in the first place. sorry but i don't support neo tribalism

so where do YOU draw the line at this "freedom?" because your taking one freedom and destroying another

will you allow people to say whatever they want to there coworkers and boss and enforce an environment where physical violence will likely result of such a work place?

in short you want to take peoples freedom of association away which is counter to the idea of freedom of speech.

a world without consequences creates consequences in of itself.

and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bayek said:

Well the fact of the matter is that political parties do exist and two of them exclusively hold the levers of power in America. If you're not in the GOP or DNC, you have no real power in the current paradigm.

I don't think you actually believe in freedom of association. Such a thing has never truly existed.

Bayek said:

thing only happens in theater of the absurd. Not real life. If you're holding back your urge to kill someone because they disagree on one or two lifestyle choices, you belong in bedlam

Bayek said:
I don't. It's the arbitrary "will of the people" that decides these things. And quite poorly too.

Proportionate consequences. Not just destroying someone's livelihood because they wear a red hat with a cringey acronym on it.

Bayek said:

Indeed, the notion of total freedom is dangerous. This is why the distinction between freedom and liberty needs to be made. The First Amendment obviously wasn't crafted so you could call your black boss the N-word or catcall an elementary schooler going home. Its specific function was to allow dissident speech against the hegemonic powers that be. At the time, that was only the British Crown (aka the gov't). Privatized monopolies and oligarchical CEOs weren't an issue. Nor was the wrath of a people guided by populism as opposed to principle.

Bayek said:

And the road to victory is paved with the backs of every person you've subjugated to have your way.

At its very core, politics is about conquest & dominion.

hazarddex said:
actually you do you can vote based on the person's character as an individual that's why i look at peoples personal policies and not party policies.

i believe in freedom of association to ideals. i could turn that argument on its head by saying no such thing as freedom from consequences exist, but your still asking for it.

your saying that there has never been a violent crime committed based on people having two different opinions? your ether naive or being intentionally dishonest if you believe no ones been murder over there opinion.

laws are made by people. they don't spring out of the ground for everyone to follow. to have laws not made by people is simple fictitious.

i would say losing your job is far better then losing your life wouldn't you?

they also made the third amendment to prevent having a standing army and look where we are now.
and whose principles yours? that's' simple ego. principles are again made by people.

deg said:
@Monad

i already did see the the second sentence it says they are subject to "government regulations"

@Sphinxter

Trump himself threaten to revoke the licenses of some mainstream news outlets so that tells you there is government regulations in place for this

Monad said:


There are lots of issue with this answer. First by saying this you claim you trust them more than common people not because of liking what they say but because they are regulated by the government as to how truthful they are and they can't lie because if they do the government will stop them.

This argument firstly implies that you trust that the government wouldn't allow lies.
Isn't that argument naive considering most people find their governments untrustworthy and lying to them?
So i guess North Korea media are the most truthful because not only are they regulated by the government but the government owns them.

Second issue with this logic. You trust the government and yet most of the media you find truthful say opposite things than the government. Hell Trump calls them fake news all the time. So how is that going exactly?

Third. When a country has laws and rights about "freedom of the press" then the government will probably end up in court by trying to shut down a private news corporation simply by claiming they are lying.
So actually they can lie just fine without giving a damn if the government likes it or not.
They are not some little guy that doesn't even have the money to get the government in courts if they oppress him.
And that is why Trump may have blown his horn but he did nothing to them in the end.


Lastly i was really really wondering if anywhere between the arguments and speeches of mainstream media and common people on the internet you decided to trust not government regulations, not appearances, fancy head lines and speech or power and approval but just plain old critical thinking. Just putting an argument down analyzing it and it's critic and critically thinking what seems more honest. Maybe you should try it.

Bayek said:
I mean, your vote is the equivalent of a pawn moving one tile in a game of chess. Voters don't have the same influence that the established powers wield. If you're not in the binary GOP v DNC system, you're at their mercy.

What if someone's ideal is to not associate with people of different races or tribes? What do you think happens when you force racial separatists to integrate and live together? Racial segregation in the US was state enforced law and even whites were compelled by the government to not associate with blacks. In contrast, however, integration was federally enforced and imposed upon people who should have had the right to choose for themselves if they were ready for such a monumental change.

Eh, no. I'm saying that firing someone because they're afraid there'll be a murder at the workplace over a disagreement about same sex marriage is highly autistic.

My statement wasn't about laws, but about the consequences of what you say. There is no moral basis for the social repercussions of free speech.

That's just so brilliant. I have a better idea though - not limiting speech based on some autistic notion that your coworker will stab you to death because you believe in two genders.

Funny that you mention that because the Constitution was written & decided on by elites without the consent of the people. At the time, the will of the people was to have a confederation of separate nation states, which would have undoubtedly led to the total collapse of such a system.

Ryuk9428 said:




Holocaust denial is protected as free speech in the United States. Its infamously illegal in Germany though, its also illegal in Israel, and maybe some other European countries.

Just because its nonfactual doesn't mean it isn't protected. The idea that Bush was behind 9/11 is also nonfactual but you have a right to claim it. Ultimately, they are opinions.

If someone doesn't think the holocaust happened then they don't think it happened. I think its pretty silly, by the same logic, you could conclude that WW2 itself didn't happen. But, there's no point in having an uproar about it anymore than there's a point to getting outraged if somebody did deny WW2 happened in the first place.