View Full Version : What is free speech? What, if anything, isn't free speech?
DurrRuhRurr
03-10-2009, 05:21 PM
I'm asking this question because there are some groups on Facebook that try to shut down other groups that make outlandish and offensive statements. Such groups claim to be in favor of free speech, but argue that what the outlandish and offensive groups are doing is not free speech because it interferes with the well-being of others, and that the freedom of those who are offended by them is being violated. Do you agree? Or do you think that free speech is saying absolutely anything you want, with no strings attached?
I think that the only speech that isn't free is deliberately and clearly slanderous speech, and other speech that violates laws, such as speech promoting child pornography. Absolutely anything else goes.
Storm
03-10-2009, 05:28 PM
Well, there are a lot considerations when it comes to free speech. To prevent your thread from becoming confusing, I'd suggest laying out your claims much more clearly.
Some Questions to Ask:
Are you talking about US 1st Amendment free speech?
Free speech in general?
Symbolic speech?
What is slanderous speech?
What about concerns such as the promotion of child pornography?
What about obscene material?
What about public decency laws?
What about speech which is said to promote a fight or riot?
All things to consider.
Second, as far as groups on a private server go (Facebook), the government largely does not regulate what they can and can not say (exceptions for things like kiddie porn). Are you saying that legally Facebook should not be allowed to decide the kind of speech on their own property?
I'm going to guess you are complaining about the censorship Hate Speech. If so, please define this word and what you want done or not done about it.
DurrRuhRurr
03-10-2009, 05:49 PM
I'm talking about US 1st Amendment free speech.
I'm talking about US 1st Amendment free speech.
Are you limiting it to the Facebook site or the jurisdiction of the US - which has several mediums with specific limitations ?
DurrRuhRurr
03-10-2009, 06:20 PM
The jurisdiction of the US, I guess. I only used the Facebook example because they were talking about "free speech" in the groups. Or you could discuss it from a philosophical stance, interpret it as you will.
Broad topic, eh?
INTJRyan
03-10-2009, 06:21 PM
"Congress shall make no law..."
Storm
03-10-2009, 06:34 PM
It is an incredibly broad topic, but it appears you are wanting to discuss a very limited type of speech - Hate Speech. Am I right? I can't respond substantively until you answer this questions specifically. Otherwise, we're going to end up with tangents such as whether people should be allowed to parade around public parks in the nude.
DurrRuhRurr
03-10-2009, 06:48 PM
No, I'm not just talking about hate speech.
Storm
03-10-2009, 07:47 PM
In that case I'm going to direct you to this thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from just this past week. If you find anything specific you'd like to talk about, please post it. This is a fascinating topic, but needs direction.
SShack
03-10-2009, 10:50 PM
Well. the First Amendment only applies to censorship actions by the government so there is no right to "free speech" in regards to Facebook or any other privately owned web site.
OnionKnight
03-11-2009, 02:00 AM
As some quotable guy put it; free speech is the ability to say things people don't want to hear. This includes "speech that violates law". In fact, if it didn't then free speech would mean absolutely nothing.
The Irish Lands
03-11-2009, 09:38 AM
Free speech means that you can say or write or paint, draw etc. everything you want and that the others dop not have to listen to it or read it and that they can switch it off, imo.
This way, Facebook groups which are trying to ban some other groups, arguing with free speech, are against the free speech.
...such as speech promoting child pornography...
what if one supports child pornography? I think that it still is free speech to support it by words... (but rather not by pictures, as they are illegal :p )
SShack
03-11-2009, 10:22 AM
Free speech means that you can say or write or paint, draw etc. everything you want and that the others dop not have to listen to it or read it and that they can switch it off, imo.
This way, Facebook groups which are trying to ban some other groups, arguing with free speech, are against the free speech.
what if one supports child pornography? I think that it still is free speech to support it by words... (but rather not by pictures, as they are illegal :p )
Do I have to keep reposting my comment until it registers? This is not what free speech means.
Congress (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 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.
Holiman
03-11-2009, 06:05 PM
First you can stop quoting the first repeatedly I think most understand the concept, but there have been several case laws decided by the Supreme Court addressing the issue of free speech in some length.
The first amendment is only about Goverment restricting your right and doesnt apply to anything else, by joining any group like facebook you are agreeing to abide by their rules and guidelines accept it and move on.
Opinions ??
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Sequoia
03-12-2009, 02:49 PM
Another aspect of free speech is how much it is controlled by advertisers; i.e. large corporations.
For example, if you decide to start your own board but choose a free host or even a paid one in many instances, you are bound by the rules of that host. Since most hosts get a lot of their income from advertising, they will meet those advertiser's criterea for what is acceptable speech and what is not. This means that a lot of things that are perfectly okay to discuss elsewhere are not okay to discuss on a lot of boards. Surprisingly, discussing things like wine or poker is enough to get a board deleted with a lot of hosts, especially if the host is located in the U.S. So is using a swear word under the proper spelling, which is why you'll see a lot of things like "f*ck!"
The OP and I are part of a group that objects to this censorship and tried to bypass it with our own board. We weren't able to entirely, due to lack of resources.
A lot of rules and restrictions are being dictated by businesses with only their bottom line in mind and they have a very real effect in suppressing free speech.
A new threat to free speech happened when some new laws passed a few months ago in the name of expanding it. Copyright laws were weakened to the point that if original work has not been fully copyrighted with strict criterea in mind for each kind and with much more restrictiveness as to what is accepted, anyone can steal it, copyright it as their own and the creator of that work looses all rights to it.
That means if someone finds something online and copies it to share in an email, or on a forum or as a screen saver and someone else sees it, they can claim it as their own and the creator has no options.
The result of this is that people are going to be unable to share their works with others. Creative works are meant to be shared and this is a huge pall on freedom of speech; a clear example of the law of unintended consequences.
Pandemonium
03-12-2009, 04:21 PM
People always talk about the right to free speech but I believe the real issue is the right to free, unbiased information and knowledge.
You can hardly call free speech 'free speech' when the person speaking has an directly forced/adopted perception.
How can you articulate yourself in the manner which is required if you do not have the knowledge to do so?
Storm
03-12-2009, 04:28 PM
No one should have the power to decide what is "unbiased" speech because no one is omnipotent. Instead, everyone can contribute their speech, and people can decide for themselves what they want to believe. If you disagree with someone's speech, say so. But don't censor the other side.
Pandemonium
03-12-2009, 05:46 PM
No one should have the power to decide what is "unbiased" speech because no one is omnipotent. Instead, everyone can contribute their speech, and people can decide for themselves what they want to believe. If you disagree with someone's speech, say so. But don't censor the other side.
*stares at the response*
ummm, ok? I was not referring to unbiased speech.
Storm
03-12-2009, 06:59 PM
*stares at the response*
ummm, ok? I was not referring to unbiased speech.
Oh, sorry. I thought you meant that biased speech shouldn't be allowed. Thus, in order to censor biased speech, someone would have to decide which speech was biased and which was unbiased. Then that someone would have to censor the biased speech. But I guess that's not what you meant. I don't know what you mean actually. Probably fault on my end.
The Irish Lands
03-14-2009, 05:15 AM
Do I have to keep reposting my comment until it registers? This is not what free speech means.
That depends on the point of view, I think.
Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the one who thinks differently, even offensively.
"Free speech," means absolute free speech. The U.S. Government has put several limitations on such free speech for what are said to be good reasons, such as inciting violence, and slander. For the most part I agree with the restrictions that we have.
With these limitations, they are not actually re-defining what free speech fundamentally is, they are placing restrictions on it. That is, if it is decided that slander is not allowed, this isn't saying "oh, well, slander isn't actually free speech," it's essentially saying "the damage from allowing slander to go unpunished is greater than the damage from restricting freedom of speech in this way."
MaleVolentworld
03-17-2009, 08:13 AM
Only government can deny freedom of speech but it is contextual.
Things that should not be allowed:
- I go on my own radio station and read off a list of names and addresses associated with bank details including pin numbers that was given to me. All for fun. Why not? breaks the law, accessory to robbery, providing information that is not yours that will allow people to steal money.
- I distribute my own newspaper that contains images of naked people I took pictures of in their own homes. I had to sneak in to take them because the curtains were closed. Invasion of privacy, violation of property rights.
- I am Mustafa Mujara and I belong to Al Qaida. I distribute leaflets telling everyone that on March 18th I'm going to carry out a suicide bomb attack against the owner of Walmart in my local town. Threat to break the law.
In each case, there is information that was either obtained illegally and does not belong to you and/or a threat to carry out illegal action. A law has been broken or will be broken.
As for the distribution of material that calls for the killing of our troops then I think merely that the authorities should investigate to see if the person has links to terrorist groups. However, if he says "I will kill the troops when they come back" then that should be denied and he should be arrested, or if he says "I won't kill the troops but you should and this is how you should do it" and he provides an elaborate plan for people to successfully carry out a killing and get away with it then he should be investigated.
Freedom of speech should be protected until it has violated individual rights or will violate individual rights if nothing is done.
Another aspect of free speech is how much it is controlled by advertisers; i.e. large corporations.
For example, if you decide to start your own board but choose a free host or even a paid one in many instances, you are bound by the rules of that host. Since most hosts get a lot of their income from advertising, they will meet those advertiser's criterea for what is acceptable speech and what is not. This means that a lot of things that are perfectly okay to discuss elsewhere are not okay to discuss on a lot of boards. Surprisingly, discussing things like wine or poker is enough to get a board deleted with a lot of hosts, especially if the host is located in the U.S. So is using a swear word under the proper spelling, which is why you'll see a lot of things like "f*ck!"
The OP and I are part of a group that objects to this censorship and tried to bypass it with our own board. We weren't able to entirely, due to lack of resources.
A lot of rules and restrictions are being dictated by businesses with only their bottom line in mind and they have a very real effect in suppressing free speech.
A new threat to free speech happened when some new laws passed a few months ago in the name of expanding it. Copyright laws were weakened to the point that if original work has not been fully copyrighted with strict criterea in mind for each kind and with much more restrictiveness as to what is accepted, anyone can steal it, copyright it as their own and the creator of that work looses all rights to it.
That means if someone finds something online and copies it to share in an email, or on a forum or as a screen saver and someone else sees it, they can claim it as their own and the creator has no options.
The result of this is that people are going to be unable to share their works with others. Creative works are meant to be shared and this is a huge pall on freedom of speech; a clear example of the law of unintended consequences.
Are you familiar with the Creative Common License (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) ?
Sequoia
03-19-2009, 08:15 PM
I'd heard of it, but not known the details. I'm not sure how the new changes in copyright law changes this, but it does in a lot of ways. Good friends of mine who are familiar with the Creative Common License because of their professions are really upset with the changes.
Thanks for the link; I've been reading some of the sites and it is illuminating. But how they apply now is not fully clear. But there is a consensus among professional writers, photographers and other creative areas that it is now far easier to loose the copyrights to their works than before these new laws were passed.
But how they apply now is not fully clear.
Well that's politics today ;-)
Who/what do you read for clarity in this area ?
Sequoia
03-21-2009, 07:10 PM
Well that's politics today ;-)
Who/what do you read for clarity in this area ?
I need to read the actual text of the law signed recently. So far, I have been relying on information from friends who have and whom this imformation directly impacts. I also read the proposed legistlation a few months ago, however I read a news report that said that the law passed had been significantly changed from the original proposal (as they usually are).
My friends had quite a bit to say about this legistlation and are people who I can rely on to be accurate.
Rho1334
03-21-2009, 09:58 PM
Ok, in my opinion free speech should never to abhored even if what the persons says in inappropiate and/or offensive. Why? Because as people we also have the right not to read or listen to opposing view. People how go onto jewish websites talking neo-nazi bullshit are just looking for a fight. And people that go into forums and try to "clean" them up are just trying to mold reality into their own dilusions. So if you don't like it, plug your ears and run screaming "I'm an idiot" because your beleifs do not and shall not infringe on te beleifs and right of someone else.
Storm
03-22-2009, 06:42 PM
^I agree and disagree. People should be able to express their opinions.
But if you disagree, you have just as much to say so as the other person. Free speech means it's free in both directions.
Rho1334
03-26-2009, 01:07 AM
true it does go in both directions but people should not except conformity out of someone with an opposing view. They should just agree to disagree.
Storm
03-26-2009, 08:35 AM
Nope, if you think what someone advocates is immoral and dumb (KKK, Nazism), you should say so loudly and as much as possible. Perhaps, not so much to the people who believe such things, but to stop them from convincing others.
Nope, if you think what someone advocates is immoral and dumb (KKK, Nazism), you should say so loudly and as much as possible. Perhaps, not so much to the people who believe such things, but to stop them from convincing others.
Exactly. Freedom of speech is the freedom to express your view, not the freedom to not be ridiculed for it, or disagreed with. If no one speaks out against hateful or otherwise disgusting views, they would spread very quickly, even quicker than they do now, in fact.
Futuremouse
03-26-2009, 10:43 AM
If we're speaking philosophically, Free Speech, is merely an ideal.
The most prevalent misconception is that people confuse the ideal with the practice. No one is guaranteed a forum. Very few exist that aren't subject to controls of some person, government entity, or corporate influence.
Nearly every opportunity to express yourself is subject to some sort of censorship, subtle or overt, because you typically do it over someone else's loudspeaker.
I need to read the actual text of the law signed recently. So far, I have been relying on information from friends who have and whom this imformation directly impacts. I also read the proposed legistlation a few months ago, however I read a news report that said that the law passed had been significantly changed from the original proposal (as they usually are).
My friends had quite a bit to say about this legistlation and are people who I can rely on to be accurate.
I'm a generalist, who uses 'experts' in knowledge acquisition because of the expertise.
"I need to read the actual text of the law signed recently. "
So, politely, I ask what's your expertise ?
Sequoia
03-26-2009, 03:46 PM
I'm a generalist, who uses 'experts' in knowledge acquisition because of the expertise.
"I need to read the actual text of the law signed recently. "
So, politely, I ask what's your expertise ?
Like you, I am a generalist, in this instance, who is using the expertise of others who are knowledgable about the subject. Their livelihood depends on it. I also stated what reading I did do. I brought it up because it is an area of concern and directly related to the free speech issue.
So it is up to you to accept what I have to say, reject it outright or look further into it.
I will be eventually, but it is on a long to do list right now.
I guess I need to add a bit more background. My group of friends include several professional writers, a few professional and amature photographers and semiprofessional artists. All of them right now are afraid to share their works for fear of loosing their copy rights because of the new law passed. They are being advised to not do so right now and they are quite worried. I have been getting the details from them on what has changed.
The whole point of creating besides for its own sake, is to share it with others. They did not decide this as a group; many of them do not know the others. The rules have been completely changed and not in favor of the person creating the work. This is an issue of concern, as I said.
Like you, I am a generalist, in this instance, who is using the expertise of others who are knowledgable about the subject. Their livelihood depends on it. I also stated what reading I did do. I brought it up because it is an area of concern and directly related to the free speech issue.
So it is up to you to accept what I have to say, reject it outright or look further into it.
I will be eventually, but it is on a long to do list right now.
I guess I need to add a bit more background. My group of friends include several professional writers, a few professional and amature photographers and semiprofessional artists. All of them right now are afraid to share their works for fear of loosing their copy rights because of the new law passed. They are being advised to not do so right now and they are quite worried. I have been getting the details from them on what has changed.
The whole point of creating besides for its own sake, is to share it with others. They did not decide this as a group; many of them do not know the others. The rules have been completely changed and not in favor of the person creating the work. This is an issue of concern, as I said.
I had missed the reading reference. Do you have any contacts in the copyright law community, especially through the artists and their professional contacts that are/could be allies in any way ?
In your circle is anyone watching Larry Lessig's latest 'Remix' project with Colbert ? Speaking of which does anyone of the artists have a product to pitch to Colbert which would allow Colbert a platform for a segment on his show ?
Sequoia
03-26-2009, 06:46 PM
I had missed the reading reference. Do you have any contacts in the copyright law community, especially through the artists and their professional contacts that are/could be allies in any way ?
In your circle is anyone watching Larry Lessig's latest 'Remix' project with Colbert ? Speaking of which does anyone of the artists have a product to pitch to Colbert which would allow Colbert a platform for a segment on his show ?
I don't have any contacts in the copyright law community, but a few of my friends might very well. I'll need to find out from them the next time I catch up with them.
I haven't heard anyone mention Larry Lessig's Remix project with Colbert. Most of them do not watch much tv but spend upwards of 70 hours a week on their work. I am not familiar with this show, so if would would tell me about it, I am interested. I'm especially interested on that last part:
Speaking of which does anyone of the artists have a product to pitch to Colbert which would allow Colbert a platform for a segment on his show ?
MortenM
03-29-2009, 03:04 AM
As I see, on the daily level of interaction, allowed free speech means that you are allowed to say whatever you want aslong as it is not done with the pure intention of debilitating others. You are allowed to express your viewpoint on something of which you think others are in disagreement, usually, with the intention of bringinng them knowledge on a topic. Who decides what is done to purely and solely to create dismay in others without any intetion of making them more informed is tricky, and that is where the pitfall is in my opinion. Informed discussion of pro-nazism and pro-racism is allowed in my book, but the slander and personal assassination is not.
That is where the government should partake and punish people who do extreme things with the pure intention of creating dismay in others, such as threats to other's life, aggressive namecalling in racist situations.
On the public, bigger level, where there are very few real persons involved, there has to absolutely without compromises be complete free speech. Again, the statements made purely to debilitate others should not be seen lighthearted, but informed discussion about all kinds of topics should be allowed. The government must be criticized and people who are critical of the government's ways must be heard and allowed to speak.
To summarize, on the personal level of daily interaction, allowed free speech is informed discussion of topics, and free speech in the form of statements made solely to create dismay in others is not allowed.
On the public, bigger level, absolute free speech is necessary. There are few people except politicans involved and the topics are greater than personal matters. In my opinion, on that level, there must absolutely be uncompromised allowance to criticize the government and criticize the theories and ways that we live by.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.