It means the right to say anything short of actually calling for violence or making credible threats. People have the same right to be offended or express opposing views. It's fair to mock or ostracize people who express repugnant views.
Even the idea of not having the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is a violation of free speech. That was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' dishonest justification for brutal U. S. government suppression of people who were protesting against the WWI draft and U. S. involvement in the war.
People who support censorship are those who only want THEIR opinions promoted. They are intolerant of other opinions but happy to shove their own opinions down other's throats. They are the ones who love to be offended and display moral outrage. They are the PC crowd. They support authoritarianism, not peace and justice.
In the U. S., Democrat supporters and the "new" brand of liberals call anyone who disagrees with them Nazis, homophobes and/or racists even when it couldn't be further from the truth. They attack comedians, protest lectures at colleges, and scream hate at political opposition.
The tactic is used by governments, too. Israel uses it to shut down pro-Palestinian speech around the world. Democrats use it to shut down public personalities who have right-wing views.
We see governments use media to promote one sided information across the board. The media is a unified echo chamber that gives one, and only one, point of view when it comes to foreign policy and certain other matters. We are subjected to the very definition of propaganda. The work of Edward Bernays has been perfected. Goebbels would be jealous.
Honest investigative journalists are deplatformed, demonetized, slandered, fired, and even arrested or murdered for reporting information that calls official narratives into question. They are accused of being "conspiracy theorists", spreading "fake news", disclosing state secrets, endangering our security, troops or operatives, or having loyalties to foreign enemies. At the same time, presstitutes are rewarded.
And if all that isn't bad enough, we saw censorship lead to mass misery, torture, injury and death under the official covid narrative. The only voices we were allowed to hear were those who supported the official narrative. It was manufactured consensus. Thousands of medical and scientific experts, many of them being the most brilliant in their fields, were viciously censored, blocked, banned, ridiculed, slandered, threatened, or fired for simply disclosing their scientific findings to the public in an effort to save lives. It's ironic that those who are most responsible for spreading false information accuse others of spreading "fake news".
We are living in an Orwellian era.
The big question is, who are the gate keepers? Who is qualified to determine what information should be censored? Should we suspect their agendas? Are we supposed to believe that people are incapable of forming their own opinions when rational and convincing information is made available?
If an opinion cannot be won on its own merits, then it has no merits.
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U. S. constitution prohibits government from infringing upon freedom of speech and the press. I support that 100%. It should apply to media, "social media", and telecommunication corporations, as well.
Free speech means no government interference over words unless an explicit threat is made.
Examples of free speech (these are just examples, not phrases I believe in):
"Why are n***ers so stupid?" "Mexicans are a stain on society" "All women are s**ts who are good for nothing other than breeding" "All so and so's should just die off or be killed" There are many more examples. These phrases are unpleasant and ignorant, but they are not threats, not even the last phrase. The last phrase is a venting expression. There is no evidence of an attack about to occur and no reasonable reason to expect that person is doing anything other than venting. Just because these phrases assault your feelings does not make them threats.
Examples of things not covered under free speech (again just examples, not things I believe):
"I'm gonna kill that b**** tonight" "That n***er is about to get what's coming to him tonight" "I'm going wetback hunting. Who wants to join me?" "All so and so's beware. Be very afraid because you are being hunted". These phrases show intent to act upon the threat being uttered. These are implied threats to safety of others.
If the speech offends someone and shows desire to act but no actual intent to act, then it is still free speech. If the speech shows an intent to cause physical harm, then it is no longer free speech because someone is in danger. It is not a government's job to censor someone just because they do not like what is being said. It is the government's job to act on real threats.
Finally, just because a government does not (or should not) intervene in free speech does not absolve one of the consequences of the speech. Let's use the "Why are n***ers so stupid?" example. You should not be arrested or prosecuted by the government for saying this. However, if you say that to a black person and they beat the shit out of you, you brought that on yourself and that black person should not be punished for stopping you from harassing them. If you say that and a job fires you/refuses to hire you because they do not want to have the image of being a place that hires racists, you brought that on yourself. There is a difference between when a legal response is needed and when common sense is needed.
Being able to live in a society where you can be annoyed by the dumbest idiots on the planet, spewing vitriolic sh*t that goes against their own best interests. If you can be annoyed by idiots online, then we're still living in a society that has free speech. And that's actually a good thing.
Leaving it 'open to interpretation' is the problem Mr RS, as the communists now running the US and the media tech companies have interpreted it to mean whatever they will allow you to say as 'free' speech, and nothing else.
Wake up and smell the coffee Mr RS
and get off the Kool-aid
The founding fathers made it clear as to what real free speech is... HELLO? ... ANYBODY HOME?
A free speech or freedom of speech is simply having the right to express yourself and your opinion/ beliefs without insulting, hating, discriminating, or intimidating others and their opinions and their beliefs. It should be a speech with full respect to others no matter what they believe in and without humiliating or insulting their beliefs and sacred books/places/beliefs. Meanwhile it should be with intention to listen to the other/opposite opinions/beliefs carefully and understanding it the way it is without interpretations of beliefs you never ever studied or understand according to believers themselves (and opinions as well).
If you need to control speech there's some wrong with YOU. These people never learned to let go of their mother's hand to go play with the other kids. That always terrified them too much. Some people are just too weak in mind and spirit to be a fully functional member of society and the world. The ones who want to control speech honestly need psychiatric help to help them let go of whatever it is that makes them refuse to admit when they are just plain wrong. If your side is true and just there's no reason to censor free speech, period. The free flow of ideas is essential to prevent societal decay, which we see with censorship on a daily basis.
It's fundamentally a value as I see it. It's not just about protection from the state; the protection reflects a value. People who value it value exchanges; they treat the market of ideas as a free market rather than one that should be regulated and controlled by a select few.
It's a value I hold deeply; even for people who say the most disagreeable of things. I want to be able to see who they are. I don't want to be among people who think that way but keep it to themselves out of fear of imprisonment or being fired or something to this effect only to end up saying one agreeable thing while thinking another and whispering behind our backs in echo chambers.
It means you don't go to jail for what you say, unless it is a call to violence or the admission of a crime. And even those have ways around them.
This weird trend about free speech being the right to use whatever means availible (even other people's businesses) to expose others to political scams sounds like something a political scammer would come up with. Which, I suppose, is exactly what happened.
Quite honestly it doesn't mean anything to me. Nothing in this world is free and speech is no different. Many will contribute it to a political perspective but I see it beyond that. People should be able to speak their minds and share communication but there will always be some sort of resistance on the spectrum. As long as there is a force that disagrees then is it really free (free from consequences that is). I see it more as the the privilege to communicate
Free speech is the right to say what you want, when you want, without government interferecnce, with the exception of the few legally defined exceptions (direct calls to violence, "fire" in a crowded theater)
It's the cornerstone to learning and improving Western societies.
really speaking there is no such thing as free speech anymore, what ever one says there is someone that will be upset, and complain, all one has to do is read the news, how can people today apologies for what happened centuries ago, they weren't even a glimpse in there great grand parents eyes but there is a big demand for it
Free speech means the government does not use the power of the state to silence your speech.
Unfortunately, GaGers think it means using the power of the government to stop a private firm from disciplining employees or users of its services for violent hateful speech or misinformation.
It means, that anything that I say, that does not intentionally incite a riot or serious criminal act, like larceny or assault, or demean a person or degrade them for any reason, is legal, appropriate, and relevant too the situation at hand as I see fit, and my entitlement too express myself in any non intrusive format I choose and can financially afford. In other words, if I'm not hurting you, than don't give me a reason to hurt you by attempting to censor me😤🤬👿🗯️
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Freedom of speech should mean that people can say whatever the hell they want, regardless of who likes it or not.
When it comes to “hate speech”... you have a right to say that you hate someone or a culture and then the repercussions of that are that you said it and your peers will know the type of person you are and deal with you accordingly.
No censorship. If people say hurtful things then let them be shunned by society. But the trend now is to criminalize free thought before it even becomes any form of expression.
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Free speech is when Elon musk buys Twitter, and the left has a complete meltdown over it. The last thing the left wants is free speech.
It means no speech can be criminalised (unless said speech is in direct service of inciting or organising an actual crime. So basically what "conspiracy charges" are already in the legal system.)
@Stoner710 ye cuz its owned by a private company. if we want a social media platform without having someone be able to censor us it have to be something decentralized that way no one owns it and can't control whats said or not
Or you just have Elon musk buy it and he will not censor anyone.
Personally I believe private companies once they get to a certain size like above 100 employees should be subject to the constitution like the government it’s self. Especially when your platform is basically the modern day town square, If it was real life I’d be able to say what ever I want, but you get banned on Facebook and Twitter for point out that Lia Thomas is a dude who was beating women in swimming. Because these companies are so powerful it would be like going out in the middle of seattle and talking to people about how men can’t be women and getting arrested for simply talking to people. The same thing applies to Twitter and Facebook
He has said he wants as much free speech as possible while obeying the laws of the country, Like in England you could get arrested for making fun of the Nazis and training your dog to do the Hitler salute, In the United States you won't get arrested for that. This is the difference between what Europeans consider free speech and what the United state considers free speech. Of course the Left like the ACLU is trying to destroy the American definition of free speech
Free speech mean you can say what you want when you want and either government nor corporations are allowed to silence you,
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
Free to speak the truth ie speak out against the gang rapes of young Christian white women in Britain by muslim men and the forced cousin marriage of Muslim women in Britain.
Well it means that no matter your opinion, it should be considered whether it's popular or not, but we now live in an environment that unless you are a wussy, you have to agree, even though you don't agree.
Freedom to say whatever you desire pubically but within limits i. e. theathen harm unto others others or declaring war or treason against the state is where it should be restricted.
It is a Fundamental Freedom to be free to think our own thoughts, speak our minds, listen to views of others and express our opinions in creative ways.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(36-45)+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(30-35)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions