Poll: What is Your Position on Freedom of Speech?

[Flavus Aquila]

Back when I was in school, freedom of speech was always and everywhere advocated as a basic human right. Censorship was considered the first hallmark of tyranny.

Today, it seems as though freedom of speech is often critiqued and treated as being almost synonymous with hate speech.

Thoughts?








The poll is going to be incomplete, but there's too many variables to make a complete one. Those details can come out in the thread.

 

[the]

Freedom of speech, like any "right", is only good when it's the kind of speech I want.

 

[Gaze]

Disclaimer: The following opinion is not a popular one, and I don't plan to defend it. It's just how I've always felt about this issue.

Another option? The middle ground: Freedom of speech "can" be good for a democratic society, if it is open, honest, as well as fairly and ethically accountable. I don't think blanket freedom of speech is good, because that would be based on the faulty belief that you should do whatever you want regardless of any accountability except to yourself which is a problematic philosophy. No social accountability is not as utopian or healthy an ideal as many would love to believe. Too often many argue for non-accountable freedom of speech, because they think they should be able to say whatever they want to say, and not have to deal with consequences or responsibility. Taken to it's extreme, blanket freedom of speech is highly destructive, just as extreme censorship is dangerous to the protection of personal rights, civil rights and freedoms. There needs to be a balance. Sometimes, there is a need for harsh speech to make things come to light that haven't been adequately addressed. At other times, silence or reserve is better because there are more important things to achieve, such as keeping the peace and saying nothing, if speaking would send us to commit violent action against each other. Thank God for ambassadors, peacekeepers, and diplomats, or else our world would be in real chaos.

 

[Azereiah]

The Freedom of Speech is only the freedom from government censorship. The government needs to not censor speech - but this doesn't mean that it's also a freedom from consequences for your speech.

Call it violent, but... I don't feel that the government should offer police protection to hate groups at their rallies - and I'm in full support of particularly vile speech, if in the presence of witnesses, being considered a voluntary dismissal of one's right to not be assaulted.

 

[ImaginaryBloke]

The ideal is "should never be regulated." But it requires that everyone is emotionally stable. If not, you can still have no regulations if there is an arena where you vent your anger and then have sound feedback that does not cause further instability.

One fault in modern society are strawmen who produce 'independent' opinions on behalf of someone else in order to push an agenda. The initiators remain anonymous. This is a sign of corruption.

 

[PintoBean]

I picked rarely regulated because of the whole thing about not shouting fire in a crowded theater.

 

[PintoBean]

The Freedom of Speech is only the freedom from government censorship. The government needs to not censor speech - but this doesn't mean that it's also a freedom from consequences for your speech.

Call it violent, but... I don't feel that the government should offer police protection to hate groups at their rallies - and I'm in full support of particularly vile speech, if in the presence of witnesses, being considered a voluntary dismissal of one's right to not be assaulted.

But who is to be the arbiter of what is considered "vile speech"?

 

[JJJA]

As I've already had a thread of mine trivialized on this very subject, I doubt my opinion is going to be popular on this, but that's what free speech is for, right?

If anybody here chose anything other than completely unregulated freedom of speech, could you please tell us where you would draw the line? I'd like to know whose job it would be to be the censor, and on what grounds the censoring would take place. It would appear to me that often times people prefer to make the claim that freedom of speech 'has its limits' because people can say some extremely hateful things that could harm world peace, but to those I ask you this: Why do you think it is the person making the offensive remarks that has to apologize for the aftermath of what he/she said? If I were to go on television and suggest that the state of Israel is a terrorist organization and as a result of what I said, thousands of radical Jews begin setting fire to embassies and protesting, whose fault is that? Even if it were a peaceful protest, it is not the entitlement of another person to demand apologies for saying the 'wrong opinion'. In our free societies, there is no such thing as a consequence of thinking or speaking. Having an opinion or making a speech is not harmful; it carries with it no victims and is simply noise in the air waiting to be heard by somebody that will think "I am so offended, I am going to demand that person apologize for harming free expression!" - this is a complete contradiction in terms. I very much resent people claiming to defend free speech whilst trying to make an excuse for advocating censorship. Censorship is censorship, no matter how small the word or how outraged people get.

So far, I have yet to see a single credible excuse for censoring people's thought and expression and at a time when people are being blown into tiny pieces of ash for drawing 'offensive' cartoons, now is the time for us to grow a pair of fucking balls and stand up in-defence of free expression. There is no middle ground. Any sort of compromise is doing a deal with somebody that doesn't want their feelings hurt and will strive to achieve this goal at the cost of many people's voices censored in the process. Even if you only want to slightly curtail free speech, that still means you want to slightly enhance censorship. If you claim you hate censorship but you also wish to give preferential treatment to specific groups in society or you wish to draw the line at 'hate speech', you are advocating censorship. It's as simple as that. I cannot stress enough on how important this basic right is to all of us, and we are beginning to see the first waves of censorship attempt to creep into the judicial systems of Europe and social media, as I have already explained on the forum. If nobody defends 100% free speech right now, we may yet be living within the last generations that still have the ability to express themselves freely.

To deny a person the right to argue his own case not only removes his right to say it, it also removes your right to hear it. Once you remove yourself the right to hear something, you are openly denying the right of you and others to learn just even a smidgen of truth. If you are any sort of reasonably-minded and rational person, it should take no hesitation to want to defend this principle.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think that news stations should not be allowed to post blatantly false and misleading information. Today we have a population of people who believe in things that simply are not factual true.

 

[the]

Actually I dont believe in rights so im not sure what I should pick.

 

[j654dgj7]

It sucks. Just shut up and do as I say.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

People can say whatever they want, everything's allowed in my book. Now that doesn't make what they say true, nor valid, and in some cases intelligent. If i feel like point that out, i don't think i'm attempting to censor someone.

 

[JGirl]

i believe the problem with freedom of speech is that many fail to realize with the right comes responsibility. yes you have the right to speak your mind, and yes you have the right to express your beliefs - but you have the responsibility to use that right where and when it's appropriate.

 

[JJJA]

i believe the problem with freedom of speech is that many fail to realize with the right comes responsibility. yes you have the right to speak your mind, and yes you have the right to express your beliefs - but you have the responsibility to use that right where and when it's appropriate.

What responsibilities, for example? Because usually when people are forced to apologize out of 'responsibility', they actually don't need to apologize for anything they've said, and nor should they. Many people say some outrageously bigoted things, but to protect their right to say it also includes the right of the person to be protected after the knee-jerk reactions which call for apologies (And in worse cases people rioting).

Where would you draw the line? What would you censor? To whom would you give such a job and the powers that come with it? What constitutes having a 'responsibility' and what actions do you require them to undertake just to say what they believe?

 

[hush]

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm for complete freedom of speech, but I have no issue with criminal prosecution for public incitement of violence. I don't know if this is an inconsistency in my position, because I see 'speech' as principally the communication of ideas/opinions/etc. Incitement seems more like a directive than a communication of concepts.


Are imperative statements outside of freedom of speech?

 

[JGirl]

What responsibilities, for example? Because usually when people are forced to apologize out of 'responsibility', they actually don't need to apologize for anything they've said, and nor should they. Many people say some outrageously bigoted things, but to protect their right to say it also includes the right of the person to be protected after the knee-jerk reactions which call for apologies (And in worse cases people rioting).

Where would you draw the line? What would you censor? To whom would you give such a job and the powers that come with it? What constitutes having a 'responsibility' and what actions do you require them to undertake just to say what they believe?

i never said anything about apologizing out of responsibility, and to be honest, after reading your post to me, i don't think you are responding to what i said at all.
i'm not suggesting censorship or apology. you are.

 

[JJJA]

i never said anything about apologizing out of responsibility, and to be honest, after reading your post to me, i don't think you are responding to what i said at all.
i'm not suggesting censorship or apology. you are.

If you are not able to answer my questions, then perhaps somebody else will be able to stand up to the scrutiny which is rightfully deserved when advocating for censorship of any kind.

 

[Elegant Winter]

I prefer the first option. I don't want my "hate speech" to be censored.

 

[JGirl]

If you are not able to answer my questions, then perhaps somebody else will be able to stand up to the scrutiny which is rightfully deserved when advocating for censorship of any kind.

your questions don't seem relevant to my original post. pardon my bluntness, but you took what i said and ran with it to suit your own agenda on this subject.
all i'm suggesting is that people own what they say and take responsibility for the words they utter - words are powerful.
if you don't see or get that, so be it. i have no interest in debating such a basic statement.