Freedom of speech and how it should be handled

[Mrcool]

Lets talk about freedom of speech. If your saying "I'm a grown up I understand freedom of speech". Maybe you do, however the use of the term freedom of speech on the TMF has been abused too death.

The definition of freedom of speech goes as
"the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint". Seems all good right? Well its not as simple as it appears. If we were to take that to its limits, death threats, child pornography and other illegal things would all be legal. Obviously rules towards freedom of speech have been made. An example would be purposeful fighting words. Saying things only to cause a fight. There are not surprisingly, tons of these rules which you can look up yourself.
I hope this shed a little light on the subject and comment your thoughts below

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

Uh-oh. This is going to irritate the people who hate political-correctness. Maybe you shouldn't have said it

 

[sonnymadler]

Not quite about freedom of speech, but about the double standard of those who contradict their own words with their actions.

 

[Bohemianne]

It's only applicable to verbal gladiators.

 

[Wolf]

Freedom of Speech is a great thing, along with all of the rights in our Constitution.
The First Amendment deals with the law, and how it looks at Freedom of Speech (and other rights).
It doesn't apply to enforcement of rules within a privately-owned website.

 

[sueme]

The biggest problem with people defending their cases with "freedom of speech" is that they don't even understand what it means in the first place (vide Mrcool's "definition"). Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean that you can say literally anything without any consequences.

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

The biggest problem with people defending their cases with "freedom of speech" is that they don't even understand what it means in the first place (vide Mrcool's "definition"). Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean that you can say literally anything without any consequences.

Instead of telling what it does NOT mean, maybe it would help telling what it DOES mean.

 

[Wolf]

Instead of telling what it does NOT mean, maybe it would help telling what it DOES mean.

Congress 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.

Actually, what it does mean is pretty vague, as the founders intended.
Historical case law and judicial opinions (such as Holmes' "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" observation) are usually about what it does not mean.

 

[Mrcool]

Instead of telling what it does NOT mean, maybe it would help telling what it DOES mean.

Didn't I have a definition in my thread

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

Didn't I have a definition in my thread

I was asking sueme. She said
"The biggest problem with people defending their cases with "freedom of speech" is that they don't even understand what it means in the first place (vide Mrcool's "definition")"



Now I'm not entirely sure if she was saying yours IS or is NOT a definition she agrees with.

 

[Mrcool]

I was asking sueme. She said
"The biggest problem with people defending their cases with "freedom of speech" is that they don't even understand what it means in the first place (vide Mrcool's "definition")"

Oh sorry lol

 

[sueme]

Instead of telling what it does NOT mean, maybe it would help telling what it DOES mean.

Here it goes, sweetheart. Let's look, for example, at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (it's an international treaty similar to the Declaration of Human Rights), Article 19:
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Wikipedia says: "Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury."

So a quick example of dos and don'ts: under the freedom of speech (aka freedom of expression) you can say that black people should get expelled from your country (even without giving a reason). It will probably be frowned upon, some people will call you racist, but no sane government ought punish you for saying that.
Under the freedom of speech you most likely CANNOT say that all black people shall be put in one building and burned alive, because it would be considered incitement or fighting words (or this oh-so-overused hate speech), which is, most likely, an offence or even a crime.

And, of course, as Wolf has already mentioned, it doesn't really apply to this forum or basically any other forum (or any other private space). Jeff is the host here and he can deny anyone a voice if he feels like it. Just like any of us can kick any guest out of our house if we feel like it; regardless of their claims to "freedom of speech".

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

Oh sorry lol

it's all good

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

Here it goes, sweetheart. Let's look, for example, at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (it's an international treaty similar to the Declaration of Human Rights), Article 19:
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Wikipedia says: "Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury."

So a quick example of dos and don'ts: under the freedom of speech (aka freedom of expression) you can say that black people should get expelled from your country (even without giving a reason). It will probably be frowned upon, some people will call you racist, but no sane government ought punish you for saying that.
Under the freedom of speech you most likely CANNOT say that all black people shall be put in one building and burned alive, because it would be considered incitement or fighting words (or this oh-so-overused hate speech), which is, most likely, an offence or even a crime.

And, of course, as Wolf has already mentioned, it doesn't really apply to this forum or basically any other forum (or any other private space). Jeff is the host here and he can deny anyone a voice if he feels like it. Just like any of us can kick any guest out of our house if we feel like it; regardless of their claims to "freedom of speech".

thanks, sue

 

[Mrcool]

it's all good

That's good to hear

 

[Tenebrae]

I'd also like to point out that different countries have different views towards freedom. And yes, Wolf, I mean bona fide democracies between themselves, not even including Asia or the Middle East. There is a very liberal approach of Freedom of Speech in the USA, while it is heavily restricted in France, for instance. So are freedom of religion, free press and the independence of the judicial. Another example: the Republic of Ireland used to have one of the toughest censorship policies of the Western world regarding arts and expression until maybe the 80's.

This is what I like about the US constitution: not it does it stress personal freedom (especially freedom of speech), but it also presents one the best balances of power between the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary that might exist in any modern democracy. At least on paper, in practice you who live there may feel it is not the case.

 

[Wolf]

I'd also like to point out that different countries have different views towards freedom. And yes, Wolf, I mean bona fide democracies between themselves, not even including Asia or the Middle East. There is a very liberal approach of Freedom of Speech in the USA, while it is heavily restricted in France, for instance. So are freedom of religion, free press and the independence of the judicial. Another example: the Republic of Ireland used to have one of the toughest censorship policies of the Western world regarding arts and expression until maybe the 80's.

This is what I like about the US constitution: not it does it stress personal freedom (especially freedom of speech), but it also presents one the best balances of power between the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary that might exist in any modern democracy. At least on paper, in practice you who live there may feel it is not the case.

I didn't say anything about any other country. I quoted the First Amendment.

 

[Mrcool]

This is all very interesting