Free Speech

[Tecumsehsbones]

Should there be any limits at all? Here are the current ones. . .

Obscenity.

Fighting words.

Incitement.

Revealing state secrets.

Words as actions.

Defamation.

Can anybody think of any others?

I think most of the debate is about words as actions, i.e., treating speech as if it has effects the way action would. E.g., treating bullying as assault, or "creating a hostile work environment" as discrimination.

Anybody wanna throw out a starting position? We might could get in seven or eight intelligent posts before the rocks start banging.

Colpy, I know it's a concern of yours. Feel like kicking it off?

 

[Danbones]

We might could get in seven or eight intelligent posts before the rocks start banging.

So you are saying we haven't had an intelligent post on this thread up to as far as yours?
but you expect some at some point

There may be a problem with the free speaking of assumptions.

 

[Cannuck]

We might could get in seven or eight intelligent posts before the rocks start banging.

So close

 

[Durry]

Should there be any limits at all? Here are the current ones. . .

Obscenity.

Fighting words.

Incitement.

Revealing state secrets.

Words as actions.

Defamation.

Can anybody think of any others?

I think most of the debate is about words as actions, i.e., treating speech as if it has effects the way action would. E.g., treating bullying as assault, or "creating a hostile work environment" as discrimination.

Anybody wanna throw out a starting position? We might could get in seven or eight intelligent posts before the rocks start banging.

Colpy, I know it's a concern of yours. Feel like kicking it off?

I think there are limits already in place for most of these, it isn't so much the words, but it's the context in which the words are used that is illegal, for instance the word Kill is fine but if you say, I'm going to kill somebody, then it's illegal.

 

[Cannuck]

So glad you cleared that up

 

[Corduroy]

I used to say I was a free speech absolutist. Now I'm not so sure. It's mostly do with the nuances of the definition of speech and the nature of power.

If someone is fired for offensive speech (as seems to be happening a lot nowadays), some complain that this is a suppression of speech while others point out that it's only a violation of the right if the state does it. Although I'd usually side with the latter, it always seemed like a cop out. We would avoid allowing the state to suppress speech because of its power and legitimacy, but other non-state institutions exercise considerable power as well. Losing your job over offensive speech could effect future job opportunities.

Totalitarian countries don't necessarily kill or imprison dissidents. They often shut them out of employment and social institutions (which, being totalitarian countries, they have a monopoly over). The same effect would be duplicated by employers in a freer society. If you're fired for being a Neo-Nazi, then future employers might avoid hiring you after looking you up. Or in the case of Colin Kaepernick, an entire industry could collude to shut you out. Is there a real difference between the state exercising this power and another societal institution? Of course, I can think of some for argument's sake, and counter-arguments to those as well, which is why I say I'm not so sure.

 

[Durry]

Sounds like you need to straighten out your thinking process.

 

[Hoid]

Stupid people should not be allowed to talk.

 

[highsticky]

Is free speech best since movie times in 70-80-90 decennium with James Bond, Rambo, Rocky Balboa, Terminator, Alien, Robin Hood, Mighty Ducks and with more best.

Since 1970's best movies as you'll know.

And then Sports events then free speech.

 

[highsticky]

 

[Walter]

Stupid people should not be allowed to talk.

No one would say a word.

 

[Vbeacher]

I'm all for all free speech other than that which deliberately and repeatedly tries to incite people to violence against someone or some group. The only people I think of who do this are the rabid right and extremist Muslims atm. Aside from that, clearly defamation has always been actionable, and stealing state secrets illegal and almost everyone is satisfied with that.

But I don't care if what someone says offends you. I don't care if you think it's 'hurtful' or 'violence', because it's not. I don't care if you think it's insulting or offensive to this or that group. Sticks and stones and all that stuff. If you're not emotionally mature enough to handle ideas which run counter to yours then you'd best just hide under your bed and stop inflicting your snowflaky presence on others.

 

[Cannuck]

No one would say a word.

I would. I must say though, it's nice to see you admit you're stupid. Many of us have known it for some time now.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

The right to speak freely comes with a heavy price. I think everyone should be able to do so, but understanding that your freedom of speech also makes you responsible to that speech. If someone calls you a racist for espousing such, they should have equal voice and not be stripped of that same freedom.

We all want our free speech, but we don't necessarily want the free speech of others.

Nothing could be clearer, post 911 with mantra's like: With Us or with the Terrorists.

What that message really meant was. Don't question us or we will brand you a sympathizer.
Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher was one of the first casualties when he stated, "That calling the 911 Hijackers cowards doesn't really make sense. After all, these men set out on a suicide mission and that's not really cowardice."

For this, he was fired. Why? Maher wasn't make a political statement, he was asking a very intelligent question for his guests to debate and discuss. Republicans, democrats, media outlets all looked the other way during an attempt to bully those who questioned the methodology of the war on terror. That went from standup comedians being censored or censoring themselves, to news agencies selling out for fear of political retribution.

In a sense, free speech, in the corporate setting of media is in very serious trouble. While I think social media free speech including sites like this one are thriving. Why do you think that is?

I think it is because they haven't figured out how to censor free speech on the web. Not effectively, any way. But they're working on it.

Or maybe that's all FAKE NEWS.

Anyway, that's my take.

 

[highsticky]

Four worst:

1.Napoleon leading France
2.Diktatorship in Germany
3.Terrorism
4.United States with wrong president