has free speech gotten to our heads a little?

[Chiliagon]

In today's world, more specifically the Democratic world.. has the idea of everyone having Free speech become so common that some people are taking advantage of it?

abusing the right to free speech?


like newspapers have their commentary or editorials where people can write in and present their displeasures or delights about something going on.

seems like there are always someone who has to complain or whine about something!

so, do some of us out there today, seem to misinterpret what Free Speech truly is about?

 

[AnnaG]

It's about expressing opinion. The only problem I see is when the opinion expressed causes harm to a group or a person (especially if it's based on nonsense). And in that case, we have anti-hate laws and litigation courts.

 

[Praxius]

Indeed, I don't have an issue with people expressing their opinions, even if they're stupid or ignorant opinions.... but when it comes to official news reporting, the reporter's personal opinions should be restricted while on the job and just tell the information as it is.... the viewer can make their own opinions.

The other aspect I feel should be restricted is hate speech or expressing opinions that target and generalize a race, gender, group etc. in a deliberately inflammatory and offensive manner that can put that particular group in harms way, such as promoting violence or oppression of said group, etc.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Free speech is free speech, period. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a matter of free speech, (as most anti free speechers will use as an example for restricting it) but something more sinister, however if someone tells lies they should be held liable under libel and slander laws, they should be as free to speak their opinion as I am to sue them for spreading falsehoods. Unfortunately we have gone the route of political correctness run amok, where under the jurisdiction of Human Rights Tribunals, the truth is no defense. People should be free to show themselves as wise or as idiots, as the case may be, whether they be the holocost denier, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, or saw Elvis in Wal-Mart. But again, free speech does not extend to the workplace, (and in many cases outside it) where, as archaic as it may sound, we are bound under English Common Law by a master- slave relationship. Ask your friendly neighbourhood labour solicitor 'bout that one. In that case for example, as a teacher you cannot teach things the board does not sanction, and as a teacher, you cannot use your capacity or affiliation to spread things that are not sanctioned by the board, that is a limit on free speech, and a reasonable one. This should not, however limit your free speech as a private citizen, but you should still have to back up what you say with proof, as with anything else. Without free speech the only truth available will be that which is given to us by the state, or its operatives in the Ministry Of Truth.

 

[Praxius]

You said Free Speech is Free Speech.... period..... and you take shots at those who try to restrict free speech.... yet you suing someone for slander or spreading falsehoods is a method of restriction as well as you are applying consequence/punishment for someone saying something.... which you say should be free...... period.

Then you go on about free speech being restricted in work places or in schools as a teacher..... you then say that it's bad to restrict the freedom of speech and yet say those restrictions are reasonable based on your subjective and quite contradictory view on what free speech is.

Unless what someone says is backed up by some form of evidence, you don't qualify what they say as "Free Speech?".... then what is is exactly?

You say shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn't free speech but something more Sinister..... yet what do you mean by Sinister?

Mere slander where one should be sued? I believe it's a bit more then just that and Slander doesn't exactly cover everything.

As I see it, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech and based on the subject at hand being expressed, certain restrictions/regulations are logical to have in place.

Nothing made absolute is ever a good thing. Balance and some form of control is wise, even if the balance/control/regulation is quite minimal.

 

[petros]

You can say whatever you want in the open air public as long as you have a permit and are in specified areas.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Indeed, I don't have an issue with people expressing their opinions, even if they're stupid or ignorant opinions.... but when it comes to official news reporting, the reporter's personal opinions should be restricted while on the job and just tell the information as it is.... the viewer can make their own opinions.

The other aspect I feel should be restricted is hate speech or expressing opinions that target and generalize a race, gender, group etc. in a deliberately inflammatory and offensive manner that can put that particular group in harms way, such as promoting violence or oppression of said group, etc.

How do inflammatory and offensive comments put an identifiable group in harms way?

 

[Colpy]

In today's world, more specifically the Democratic world.. has the idea of everyone having Free speech become so common that some people are taking advantage of it?

abusing the right to free speech?


like newspapers have their commentary or editorials where people can write in and present their displeasures or delights about something going on.

seems like there are always someone who has to complain or whine about something!

so, do some of us out there today, seem to misinterpret what Free Speech truly is about?

Ahhhh....your Liberal colours are showing.

"Taking advantage" of free speech is what you are SUPPOSED to do in a free society.

The only people that have rights are those that exercise them.

 

[TenPenny]

You said Free Speech is Free Speech.... period..... and you take shots at those who try to restrict free speech.... yet you suing someone for slander or spreading falsehoods is a method of restriction as well as you are applying consequence/punishment for someone saying something.... which you say should be free...... period.

Then you go on about free speech being restricted in work places or in schools as a teacher..... you then say that it's bad to restrict the freedom of speech and yet say those restrictions are reasonable based on your subjective and quite contradictory view on what free speech is.

Unless what someone says is backed up by some form of evidence, you don't qualify what they say as "Free Speech?".... then what is is exactly?

You say shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn't free speech but something more Sinister..... yet what do you mean by Sinister?

Mere slander where one should be sued? I believe it's a bit more then just that and Slander doesn't exactly cover everything.

As I see it, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech and based on the subject at hand being expressed, certain restrictions/regulations are logical to have in place.

Nothing made absolute is ever a good thing. Balance and some form of control is wise, even if the balance/control/regulation is quite minimal.

Do you really think you should be allowed to say that?

 

[JLM]

I suppose, given the number of people who make stupid statements.

 

[Chiliagon]

Ahhhh....your Liberal colours are showing.

"Taking advantage" of free speech is what you are SUPPOSED to do in a free society.

The only people that have rights are those that exercise them.

I don't know about that.

I believe that there are some of us that use the "freedom of Speech" route as an excuse to say something stupid or mean or just down right unbelievable!

just because you have the right to have something come out of your mouth, does not mean it is an intelligent something.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't know about that.

I believe that there are some of us that use the "freedom of Speech" route as an excuse to say something stupid or mean or just down right unbelievable!

just because you have the right to have something come out of your mouth, does not mean it is an intelligent something.

I think you have some misapprehension as to what constitutes freedom of speech. Freedom of speech permits anybody to say anything stupid, mean or outrageous.

Indeed, stupid, mean, outrageous speech is the precise speech that needs the protection of freedom of speech. Intelligent speech, non controversial speech, speech that makes others feel good does not need freedom of speech. Such speech can be uttered even in a dictatorship. Nobody would take any exception to that.

It is the speech that people find offensive (because it is stupid, mean, outrageous etc.) that must be protected by freedom of speech.

 

[petros]

I don't know about that.

I believe that there are some of us that use the "freedom of Speech" route as an excuse to say something stupid or mean or just down right unbelievable!

just because you have the right to have something come out of your mouth, does not mean it is an intelligent something.

If people say stupid **** don't listen. You have a right to walk away grumbling to yourself. Use it.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

I think you have some misapprehension as to what constitutes freedom of speech. Freedom of speech permits anybody to say anything stupid, mean or outrageous.

Indeed, stupid, mean, outrageous speech is the precise speech that needs the protection of freedom of speech. Intelligent speech, non controversial speech, speech that makes others feel good does not need freedom of speech. Such speech can be uttered even in a dictatorship. Nobody would take any exception to that.

It is the speech that people find offensive (because it is stupid, mean, outrageous etc.) that must be protected by freedom of speech.

excuse me? Your statement, "Freedom of speech permits anybody to say anything stupid, mean or outrageous." is erroneous. There is no 'specific' regarding 'Freedom of Speech' - it is what it is - the freedom to speak freely.
One example, Pastor Martin Neimoller. (Sorry, I know you dislike religious people and feel that they have no moral compass, but I couldn't think of an atheist off the top of my hat - feel free to enlighten me)He became disillusioned with the Nazis during WW2 and wrote:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Now to me, this is confrontational. And I guess the Nazi Party thought it was because they high tailed him to a concentration camp. And then we could talk about Bobby Kennedy and his speeches against segregation, and don't forget Martin Luther King ...
Freedom of speech gave these men the right to speak - they got killed for what they said. Now, are you going to tell me that they were killed because they said something stupid, mean or outrageous (your words)?
Actually, I just realized that what you wrote, "Intelligent speech, non controversial speech, speech that makes others feel good does not need freedom of speech." is pure bunk. My above examples were people that didn't rant and rave, but they were very controversial and they suffered for what they said - but it didn't make people feel comfortable - and they suffered for it.
Good grief - I don't think I'd want to be caught in a 'between a rock and a hard place' situation with you - you would probably pick the 'rational' decision, not the moral one.

 

[karrie]

In today's world, more specifically the Democratic world.. has the idea of everyone having Free speech become so common that some people are taking advantage of it?

abusing the right to free speech?


like newspapers have their commentary or editorials where people can write in and present their displeasures or delights about something going on.

seems like there are always someone who has to complain or whine about something!

so, do some of us out there today, seem to misinterpret what Free Speech truly is about?

Are you seriously sitting here on a debate and discussion forum, yet complaining that perhaps editorials in newspapers are a stretch of free speech? They are practically the same thing as this very forum.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

excuse me? Your statement, "Freedom of speech permits anybody to say anything stupid, mean or outrageous." is erroneous. There is no 'specific' regarding 'Freedom of Speech' - it is what it is - the freedom to speak freely.
One example, Pastor Martin Neimoller. (Sorry, I know you dislike religious people and feel that they have no moral compass, but I couldn't think of an atheist off the top of my hat - feel free to enlighten me)He became disillusioned with the Nazis during WW2 and wrote:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Now to me, this is confrontational.

The dictatorship would argue that that is not intelligent speech, that is just plain stupid. And that is what many dictatorships claim, that they ban only stupid, nonsense speech, speech which instigates disloyalty among the citizens.

That is why I would never defend freedom of speech with the argument that intelligent speech needs to be protected. Nobody would admit to censoring intelligent speech, they would only claim that they are censoring stupid speech.

That is why it is all the more important to protect stupid, outrageous speech. Do that and all speech is protected.

 

[Praxius]

How do inflammatory and offensive comments put an identifiable group in harms way?

That depends on what's being said.

Do you really think you should be allowed to say that?

I just did didn't I?

I think you have some misapprehension as to what constitutes freedom of speech. Freedom of speech permits anybody to say anything stupid, mean or outrageous.

Indeed, stupid, mean, outrageous speech is the precise speech that needs the protection of freedom of speech. Intelligent speech, non controversial speech, speech that makes others feel good does not need freedom of speech. Such speech can be uttered even in a dictatorship. Nobody would take any exception to that.

Really? What about that lady from CNN who just lost her job for saying something "Nice" about someone who just passed away?

It is the speech that people find offensive (because it is stupid, mean, outrageous etc.) that must be protected by freedom of speech.

That makes no sense whatsoever.... clearly by many examples easily found in everyday news or online and in not just dictatorships but also even in our own previous little democracies, people who say nice things or try to make someone feel good who is also an enemy of someone who holds some form of authority over you (or someone who just doesn't like what you have to say, regardless if it's meant with good intentions) can and will punish you........ you claim that sort of stuff doesn't need protection because you assume it is a given that everybody would accept with open arms, that kind of talk, which is clearly not true.

What about people who tell someone else "Merry Christmas" and someone tells them to take a flying-backwards leap into a cactus or decide to sue a store because one of their employees said that to them and they don't like or even hate Christmas and Christianity? They meant well, yet that means squat these days.

Yet we need to protect the freedom of morons and idiots to spout off all their pointless, ill-informed, ignorant comments as if what they're saying is valid and important somehow?

So we need to protect the rights of idiots like Palin and the Tea Party fools, the KKK, Neo Nazis, etc.?

I'm for protecting freedom of speech in a fair, reasonable and logical manner/approach with certain reasonable restrictions on certain things.... but I am not for a complete open door policy to allowing everybody to say anything they damn well please regardless of the consequences.... nor am I for a complete ban/lock down on what people can say....... and I am certainly not for a system that out-right protects the stupid so they can say anything they want, while those who actually know wtf is going on and have a brain have no protections at all for the simple assumption that nobody would infringe on their rights..... nor am I for the banning of idiots from speaking their mind..... but there has to be a balance between the two, or else you'll have elitist having total control, or you'll have complete morons in total control, and very little dialog will exist between the two.

Are you seriously sitting here on a debate and discussion forum, yet complaining that perhaps editorials in newspapers are a stretch of free speech? They are practically the same thing as this very forum.

Except they get paid, and we do not. (edit, correction, I am referring towards the guys they hire and regularly post their two cents in their own column, rather then random folk writing to the paper about something)

And to some people, someone getting paid to do the exact same thing many of us do can give the impression that their opinions are more valid then the next persons, thus influence more people then you and I, not just because they get paid to do what they do, but also because they're published in a newspaper read by thousands, sometimes millions of people.

I personally see a slightly different form of responsibility between us and those in newspapers doing the same thing we're doing...... though just slightly.

 

[JLM]

That is the first I've heard about it, but I'm wondering if she was editoralizing, when she was just supposed to be reporting????????????????

 

[TenPenny]

No, she made a comment on twitter that was her personal opinion. However, as a public face of the newsmedia, she knows that anything she posts would reflect on her professionally.

To me, it's not really a freedom of speech issue. She's free to say whatever she wants to, however, her chosen profession is to be the public face of a media, so therefore she voluntarily accepted the limitations that come with that profession.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What about people who tell someone else "Merry Christmas" and someone tells them to take a flying-backwards leap into a cactus or decide to sue a store because one of their employees said that to them and they don't like or even hate Christmas and Christianity? They meant well, yet that means squat these days.

I don’t see what point you are trying to make here. People have perfect right to say ‘Merry Christmas’ to anybody, whether somebody likes it or not. So what is your point?

As to the store, individual businesses may decide their own free speech policies, what may or may not be said on their premises. But that does not take away anybody's right to say 'Merry Christmas' in public places, which is really the only place where freedom of speech is protected. Freedom of speech is not protected in private places, there the owner may set his own policy.

Thus, this forum is a private forum. The owner and moderators decide what may or may not be said in the forum. They may find certain things unacceptable and have the right to ban them, even though they may be protected by freedom of speech in a public place.

Yet we need to protect the freedom of morons and idiots to spout off all their pointless, ill-informed, ignorant comments as if what they're saying is valid and important somehow?

Absolutely. Freedoms apply to anybody and everybody, morons and idiots included.

So we need to protect the rights of idiots like Palin and the Tea Party fools, the KKK, Neo Nazis, etc.?

Quite so.

I'm for protecting freedom of speech in a fair, reasonable and logical manner/approach with certain reasonable restrictions on certain things.... but I am not for a complete open door policy to allowing everybody to say anything they damn well please regardless of the consequences.... nor am I for a complete ban/lock down on what people can say....... and I am certainly not for a system that out-right protects the stupid so they can say anything they want,

That tells me that you don't properly understand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom fo speech applies to everybody, regardless of the merit of the speech. There are very few limits on freedom of speech, it is the most fundamental right enumerated in the Charter. It is superseded only by the right to safety (you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater). It even trumps freedom of religion. If my speech offends some religion, that is just too bad, but I have the right to free speech.