Free speech is worth whatever price. Our society is predicated on free speech and we've done a reasonably good job so far, all things considered. There's nothing better to compare it to as of yet.
It is pointless to say that free speech is worth any price if that price cannot be afforded. The idea of unrestricted free speech is naive, it will never work and will never happen. In an ideal world, maybe, but this is not an ideal world.
What cannot be afforded is to have free speech taken away.
@yousir Sure, sounds great but it hasn't been taken away. It exists, it's just not free without limits. The world is not falling apart because of this. The fact that we may have strayed too far into sensitivity is another issue. It doesn't mean that it should be a free for all. Too many laws wouldn't indicate that lawlessness is the way forward.
That's an extremely sensible viewpoint. It's just foolish when people voluntarily give up their rights because they want to spite people they don't like. Then they expect to be immune to the rules that they helped set in place. It doesn't work that way, so we need to be careful what we wish for. We may look back and regret it.
My words don’t account for someone else’s actions. Of course harassment is a completely different thing. You say it’s more than hurting someone feelings but it’s really not because we give power to words. If someone decides to be offended by someone’s opinion that’s just life we can’t all agree on things.
Oh that's because we're big boys and girls and her mama's and dad has taught us to think before we act out or we're going to end up in jail or dead
@Amanda__MurphyThis has nothing to do with being offended by someone's opinion or whatever. For example lets say you are Alex Jones and you do not like a guy in particular. You could say something during your radio show along the lines of that person being a foreign hostile spy planning to cause mass devastation in a major city and its likely that some people would believe you. At that point you may very well get that person you dont like killed by vigilantes.In this case you are clearly responsible for that mans death and arguably that was even your intent in the first place.
Yes that it's quite similar to a lot of false allegations that are made in court and you know adding somebody that's a spy or that's gay or whatever yeah you know but at the same time that's but you know the brain mouth filters for unless you're really fucked up I don't think you want to test on your conscience and well if you are than I think people need to start taking a look at the where the information comes from but I do agree to an extent I wish people. More worldly than self
@Soteris This 100%
@cherryphi82 Thanks for the most helpful! :D
Where I live (the United States), that would be protected.
As long as your not be threatening why not? That being said that’s kind a different story because the owner has the right to put the safety of his customers first of someone feels uncomfortable they have the right to tell that person to leave because it effects there business.
What Amanda said. Free speech is completely protected in public places, but the owners of private companies and spaces have the right to remove or take action against you based on what you say, as they control the space.
But hold on - free speech is protected. The owner doesn’t have the right to impede on my freedom of speech
So you’re ok wirh me spreading rumors and lies as long as “all” free speech is free?
The owner of private property can choose to not allow you to be physically present on their property while you yell at someone, but once you're off the premises you could continue to yell however you like and nobody could do anything about it.
The owner DOES have the right. You are within a business they own. They get to say who can and can't be there, and if you're creating a disturbance they can have you removed from the premises. It's less about free speech and more about the owners ability to pick and choose who remains on their property.
@HungLikeAHorsefly true. So in that case free speech is only free in public spaces, and social media But again, everyone is okay with free speech spreading rumors and lies?
It’s there premises so they have the right to bar anyone they like because it is there property. Just like if there is a rude customer taking up the employees time on unnecessary issues the owner can tell that person leave because it effects there business. Kind of like if a child is talking out of turn in class while the teacher is teaching something they have the right to tell them leave that classroom because they effecting the other students.
Yeah rumors and lies are perfectly fine. The only problem you run into is if you try to publish lies, because then people can sue you for libel/defamation.
The owner does not have the right to keep you from exercising your freedom of speech. Rather, they have the right to keep you off of their property. For example, let's say you were yelling at a waitress at an open air restaurant. The owner could remove you from the property, but there's nothing they could do about it if you chose to continue yelling at the edge of the property where customers could still hear you.
Well that’s what I meant and at that point it’s harassment because as i said as long as you’re not making the person feel unsafe then there shouldn’t be a problem
Yes, that should be legal for you to do just like it is legal to make you leave as a result.
But offense is subjective, what you find offensive and what I find offensive are completely two different things. Some people get offended over everything to the point they are offended when people don’t have the same opinion as them, so I could say I don’t believe in god because I’m an atheist and that could be offensive to a religious person
That's true. Some people get offended over nothing. But what I mean is as long as your intention is not to offend anyone or make fun of anyone then it's fine. They can take it the way they want. What matters is your intentions
But I could say something’s controversial and my intentions wouldn’t be to offend them for example I could say I have problem with the religion Islam because I find it old fashioned and sexist to women and someone could accuse me of trying to be hurtful towards Muslims when I’m only stating a problem I see in there belief system.
Then that's their problem, but you don't mean to offend them by saying this. You are only stating your opinion. That's what I mean when I said what matters is your intentions.
That's not really a viable solution to anything. Who gets to decide what your intentions are when you say something? The intentions police?
But that’s the problem nearly no one says things with the intention of offending someone they say it because they believe it right like some racist could say “I don’t like black people in America because I don’t think they contribute to the country” and even though me and you might dislike that I think that person has the right to say that because they believe that. Also you’re telling me that you have never said something with the intent of hurting them. Say you get into a fight with your best fiend because she slept with your boyfriend you would want to insult her I’d imagine because at that moment and time you are angry and upset and you should have the right to call her and the boyfriend pieces of shits.
@yousir why do you have to prove your intentions to anyone? As long as you know you don't have bad intentions isn't that enough? Other people can think what they want or get offended and you don't owe them any proof as to what your intentions are. It's their choice to get offended or not to
@Amanda__Murphy that is still freedom of speech. It's pretty clear that if your boyfriend cheats on you he's a piece of shit, that's not even an offense but a fact
Not because that’s an insult because he is not a literal piece of shit. But you’re not getting my point you would be saying that to try to hurt them like they hurt you there for your intentions were to hurt them. Also the problem isn’t whether you believe you’re intentions were right it’s others because we are talking about rights here. People think people should be fired and expelled because they certain believes in things
About the cheating part - it's way different if you intend to hurt someone who's hurt you, you have all the right to do that in my opinion. As for the rights part - I still believe there is a fine line between meaning to state your opinion, and meaning to offend someone. For example staying an opinion can be something like "I dislike Muslims because of this and that" and an offending and insulting one would sound more like "Muslims should all burn to hell, they are all pieces of shit, fuck them " You have the right to state your opinion about Muslims and Islam but in my opinion you have no right to insult them. U can state your opinion in a respectful manner.
We will agree to disagree because I think you should say whatever you feel like saying because offensive is taken not given
I agree... But I hope you got my point here that there are a lot of people who not only want to practice freedom of speech, but they also want to force their opinions on others no matter what. First they offend their beliefs with saying stuff like "this is bullshit, this is crap, you're an idiot" acting as if they know everything, even tho everyone has the freedom of choice, to choose how they want to live, and in what they want to believe and they deserve to not be treated like shit just because others dislike their ways of living or beliefs. So freedom of speech can turn into some sort of verbal bullying sometimes, and I believe that's where it has to stop.
Well some views points do deserved be shut down and called stupid lol
No, that's not right. Viewpoints, no matter how stupid do not deserve to be shut down. With that kind of attitude it is only a matter of time until your viewpoint is the stupid one that gets shut down.
And potato, what you are talking about is an unwritten rule of decency. People are expected to treat eachother with respect. That doesn't mean a third party has to enforce rules of censorship. Most people do a fairly good job as a whole because society hasn't yet completely obliterated itself.
I should report you for daring to say this since your advocating against my freedom which is grossly offensive.
@youssir maybe they are expected to treat each other with respect but a lot of people I know have no respect whatsoever as long as they force your opinion on you, offend you, insult you, make it seem as if they're the only right people on this planet, and then call it a freedom of speech. I've no problem with anyone sharing their opinion about whatever topic they want as long as they are not forcing their opinion on me.
@sawno isn't this freedom of speech? In your comment I saw it should have no limits so why are you complaining right now? I'm only practicing my freedom of speech. No ill intended lol ✌
You have the right not to listen. That should not be infringed upon either.
He was being facetious.
I am holding you on your own suggestions, you wish to limit speech where the freedom of others begins and since you are limiting my freedom you should stop talking by your own admission. In fact you should not speak at all since the downvote is an indicator you are being offensive.(Trying to show why this logic is incredibly bad for your own freedom, obviously you can debate but for the sake of argument ill hold you to your own ruleset)
And I clearly stated I'm not intending any offense so it's your choice whether you wanna take it as offensive or not, that's none of my business. I haven't really insulted you or told you to believe the same or have the same opinion so even if I have a downvote it doesn't really mean anything to me rather than the fact that someone has a different opinion than mine, which I'm ok with
Unfortunately for you that is not how these laws tend to work. Intentions do not matter in hate speech law as evidenced by a comedian being found guilty over what was obviously a joke. In fact Ireland has that exact law, i should probably report you for hate crime against me for trying to condem my prefference of life. The sentence is a couple of years in jail if you are found guilty.
In fact thinking about its quite clear you are doing this to stop white people from speaking out. You are being racist.(Again, just doing the typical trick they have used in the UK to silence opinions they do not like, i dont actually have anything against you and your obviously not a racist).
We are not talking how law works here, we are staying our opinions on how free speech should be. I stated my opinion which doesn t necessarily have to fit in with how law works today. Cuz we are talking in theory.And I'm pretty confident that even if you did I would win the case cuz I clearly stated earlier that I have no problem whatsoever with you having a different opinion, nor am I trying to force my opinion on you, you have the right to have a different opinion and I have it too
No, i would clearly win the case because you are using this to silence white people.Just like the men teaching his dog to react to the phrase 'Gas the jews' for the sole purpose of the dog no longer being cute to his girlfriend was found guilty of spreading nazi propeganda even though he said he was doing this as a prank on his girlfriend at the beginning of the video.You are clearly lying about your intentions because you are using this to silence white men as they most often use free speech. There for you are a racist and a sexist and can be arrested.
So in case you didn't get the point trough my obvious attempts to use these rules against you and making you viable to go to jail is that the way this starts is indeed innocent with a thought we should not offend others. That then evolves to a powerful silencing tool the governaments use to silence everyone they disagree with by making excuses and ignoring everything that proofs you are not guilty. The only protection from that is if your defending free speech because then even if its taken the wrong way its completely legal. Until then you are automatically a racist and a sexist who goes to jail because i disagree with your opinion and am roleplaying as an authoritative state.
I swear I didn't know she was a racist and a sexist. I was not participating in hate speech by talking to her. I don't even know her. She's a terrible person and I denounced her. Please take her to jail now.
That's what I'm talking about tho. There should be a proof that you were ill intended to prove you guilty, otherwise you're not. That's why I'm saying my opinion does not necessarily fit into the current law, it's merely an opinion. The dog prank is a great example of what I'm trying to say. People can feel offended but it's none of his business if they do, because he didn't mean it as an insult. And he can only prove guilty if he's proven to be ill intended. Yes the law doesn't work this way but if we are speaking hypothetically, then the law should be adjusted too, hypothetically.
That is fair, but the whole point behind my argument is the fact that these rights are abused to silence important speech. Being offensive should be ok or you can not discuss sensetive subjects. Would you tell a fat girl she should loose weight for example if you fear for her life? What if you are a doctor? Is it then wrong if she takes offense to it? How about criticizing dangerous aspects of society such as conflicting alternative cultures? That can be taken as hate speech to.To me you should be allowed to say absolutely everything, when there is an action associated with your wordings you can get convicted on the action. For example if i threaten you i should be allowed to say the threat, but i can be convicted on the base of threatening alone. Its a solid balance that allows people the freedom they need in a democracy while still punishing speech when it is used in a criminal way by convincing the associated actions.
Fair enough. All I'm trying to say is, people will always be offended, it's just how the world goes.. But as long as you don't mean of intend to offend them, and as long as you have no proof that you're intending to offend them or purposely offending them, then you're not guilty cuz you're only exercising your freedom of speech.
It all comes down to the situation
Its a pretty fair ruleset that should protect most speech to the point where the rule might be a bit ineffective. I still think it should be up to society though rather then actually be forbidden by a law.
Look you’re not going to see our side of it and I’m definitely not agree with your way of dealing with free speech so let’s leave it
I already saw your side of it. And I'm ok with it. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise 🤔 it was nice discussing it tho and i already left it a few hours ago 😂
You mean your freedom of speech ends where someone's feelings begin?
@Storm_Soldier2377 She means it in an internet board sense where you may not intentionally offend someone. Bad as a law but an acceptable moderation policy.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
When regards safety in instant like that I agree it has a limit but that’s pretty much it for. Anything that can put someone in danger physically I don’t agree with
But see, that means you are for limits to free speech. People who proclaim that there should "never ever be any limit to free speech" (as you did) always forget about these necessary limits. Just wanted to point that out. ;)
Well harassment and threats are my only limit. I just didn’t want to go on to much in my question. I just assumed that would be a must for everyone.
Im curious on people’s views points
My problem with that is what do they actually mean by “create disturbance” what’s actually counts as disturbance because what might disturb me might not disturb the person next to me and then free speech is being controlled by other people’s feelings. And the “publish lies” part people constantly through our claims without any actually evidence all the time.
Well usually it means causing a mass disturbance, not on a personal level, like yelling "fire" in a movie theater, or screaming that someone has a gun in the middle of a shopping mall
I understand that but people overuse the term I think for example if someone says something controversial a huge mob of people might start crowding around that person shouting at them and being aggressive and it’s blamed on the person stating their view
Sure, and honestly that's fine. What's not fine is the government stepping in. You allowed to shout racial remarks and shit like that, and people are allowed to yell back at and criticize you.The government only takes action in cases like I stated before.
Yeah I agree with you there sorry about confusing your point
Exactly. Hope everyone can understand that
Hail Jordan Peterson!
Not really just because you don’t like what I say doesn’t give me the right to assault you. Offense it taken not given
Well, if you do certain things I'm not saying it does give the right, but I'm just saying you should expect to get hit or insulted back if you do asshole things.
I well true but then that person who assaulted them also should expect to be charged with assault.
Sure people should read and watch it if they want and if they don’t to bad. Of course there should be age restrictions and threats are a completely different thing.
I think ISIS incites violence. That’s already limited
@My-Shangri-La But there you go- the concepts of "inciting violence" and "inciting hatred" are used to limit, restrict and diminish the right to free speech. Should these limits exist?
As long as they are making threats like “we are going to keep attacking your country because you don’t live by the law of Islam” and that wouldn’t be appropriate
i like imminent violence so I don’t mind
What about "we are going to keep attacking your country because you live by the law of Islam (i. e, Sharia Law, under which women have next to no rights)"? Would that be appropriate? And if so, then why should the rule only apply one-way?
What do you mean by “hatred” because there is a lot of things I hate I think I should have the right to voice that, I hate pedophiles, racists, sexist, a huge junk of religion and so on. Why shouldn’t I be able to voice my hate for those things?
Hatred as in: I want to kill this person, Black people should all die, I Kill the president, this kind of hatred that promotes violence.
Exactly my point lol.. seems like a lot of people have a problem with that for some reason tho lol
I completely agree thank you. I think it’s so important to hear things that you don’t agree with because it challenges your own belief system.
exactly, that's the point.
I think diplomacy is really important here
So only when it regards the safety of the other person it crosses a line?
No, only when it regards the safety of another person and the threat is believed genuine. For instance, any random guy on the internet says "I'm going to assassinate the Koch Brothers", that's just nonsense. But, Charles Melton says that same thing, actionable cause.
My question is what is your view on free speech
Its great we need it to be better there's too much corruption within the United States too many unseen monopolies newspaper for being politically fucking motivated and a lot of things are being kept out nobody knows how bad that US government is until they hear about it from people in other countries for an example or here in Lancaster there's only one phone company
And if you want to worry about killing over a word about religion been going on since the dawn of time and will be going on till we're all in the ground and I'm talking about Mass genocide because of religion and ethnic cleansing and fucking cultures being wiped away because of something somebody said and it got tooken way too personal that's the thing Master what is hell in the Zen master said you're an ugly dog in the samurai took out his sword and says I'm going to kill you in the Zen master said that's hell
So when Kathy griffin held a severed head of the president... she should have been prosecuted?
@Rissyanne I don't know
@Rissyanne Honestly, I think so, yes.
@jacquesvol... suddenly you have no opinion. I guess when liberals do the slander or incitement to criminal acts it's ok.
@Rissyanne Did she tell the people to decapitate anyone?
No... but there are plenty of liberals that have threatened the president. Madonna threatened to blow up the white house... and we heard nothing from you liberals.
But do you really think Griffin meant anything other than harm come to the president? I know you aren't that stupid.
Here is a list of celebrities who have threatened the president. Johnny Depp, Snoop Dog, Charlie Sheen, Mickey Rourke. This is incitement to criminal acts. Dont be a hypocrite.
@Rissyanne I agree that there's a double-standard.
@Rissyanne there were several plans to kill Obama which weren't reported by MSM.
Not like Trump. And you know it. You just want to protect your fellow liberals.
Can you elaborate?
Just read anything that @Soteris wrote and it should explain it.
No not at all i feel like say what you want feel free how ever along you need it's all on you
And somebody once said that if you allow everybody complete freedom, then everybody loses freedom, because somebody is going to abuse that freedom (similarly like the fascist parties abused free speech and got themselves elected in countries like Germany in 1940s, and then created a totalitarian regime).
So if someone comes along and kills a family member of mine and I say I went them to get the death row do you think that is hate speech because I’m encouraging violence against that killer
No. That is different from my scenario. I'm talking about people inciting mob violence etc. That could be expressed at a sentencing hearing and you would be speaking about it in the context of a punishment imposed by the state AFTER they had been found guilty by a jury of their peers. That is respecting the laws of your land.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. So because someone says something stupid we should have limits on free speech?
Yeah. And by limits, I don't mean the written law. I mean, one's common sense.
Well what one person thinks is a stupid another might not. Some religious people “thank God” for things and I thinks that’s pretty stupid
I agree. But religion is a sensitive topic. If freedom of speech don't have a limit, we all could go pointing fingers all day at them and laughed how stupid they are. Which would result in war.Tho not like we don't have it now.
But we put sensitivity on topics, that’s the choice. Just because it’s sacred and important to one person doesn’t mean I have to tip toe around them
The fact that you don't want to tip toe around certain topics is the reason why there should be limits on freedom of speech.
Imagine all the chaos because people justify it under 'freedom of speech'.
Well I just think people should be able to say what they like and if people want to taken offense that’s fine that’s there problem. That’s just my opinion but I’m allowed have this opinion because of free speech
There you go. Nice having this conversation with you.
Well they are trying to limit it in places like schools and colleges and putting it under the term hate speech
Oh I know. And that is scary. But it’s liberals doing it though so hopefully it doesn’t get enough backing to become a new law
I agree with aggression not with hate, if I want to promote hate against a pedophile i want to do that
Oh for sure i meant hating on people or things for reasons that aren’t exactly justifiable. If you want to hate on like political views there's like ways you can do it without being a horrible person