Is it time to get the U. S. government out of the censorship business and to bring back freedom of speech?

Question

When Elon Musk bought Twitter. The release of the Twitter Files destroyed any plausible deniability of the government’s role in this censorship system. Various agencies had employees working with social media companies to target those with opposing or disfavored views.

While companies like Facebook have continued to fight to conceal their coordination with the government, the Twitter Files pulled back the curtain to expose the system. Indeed, Democrats largely abandoned their denials and turned to full-throated defenses of censorship, even calling free speech advocates “Putin-lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was a primary issue for voters. It should be again. Vice President Kamala Harris is known as a supporter for these censorship and blacklisting operations. She can now defend that record and convince Americans that they need to have less free speech.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/08/15/want-more-freedom-of-speech-try-less-government/

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

There has never been complete freedom of speech.

I'll let The Saturday Evening Post explain it...

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/03/6-exceptions-to-freedom-of-speech/

March 21, 2017

6 Surprising Exceptions to Freedom of Speech
Your right to free speech is limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it.

Although the First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” Americans don’t have the luxury of always saying whatever they want. Your right to free speech is limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it.

Here are six areas where your talk can make you liable in criminal or civil court.

1. Obscenity
Most of the legal cases that concern sex and free speech have involved publications (a form of speech as far as the courts are concerned). Obscenity is not protected by the Constitution, but it has been difficult to define what is obscene. In 1973, the Supreme Court, in Miller v. California, came up with a three-part definition of obscene material. A work is legally considered obscene if

an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material appeals to prurient (appealing to sexual desire) interest.
the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by applicable state law.
taken as a whole, the material lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This limit on obscene speech also applies to broadcasting. The FCC controls what is allowed on air, so you can’t broadcast sounds or images that could be offensive to your audience or use language inappropriate for children.

However, the Supreme Court has, so far, kept the internet free of obscenity restrictions. You can make whatever statements you want on social media sites, but the owners of those sites have the freedom to censor or delete your content if they find it offensive.

2. Lies
Lying is covered by the First Amendment, except when it’s not. You can be prosecuted for lying under oath in court (it’s called perjury). You can also be charged with misleading authorized investigators. Remember Martha Stewart’s conviction in 2004? She went to prison for lying to investigators about her stock trading.

It is also illegal to run dishonest advertisements. And if you deliberately tell lies about people, you can be hit with a lawsuit in civil court for either libel (if published) or slander (if spoken).

Politicians, on the other hand, have broad protections against being prosecuted for lying, and citizens largely have free rein to criticize their governments, even if the comments are false. Luckily for late night talk show hosts, the First Amendment allows citizens to satirically mock a public figure.

3. Violence
You can’t make offensive remarks or personal insults that would immediately lead to a fight. You also can’t threaten violence to a specific person unless you’re making an obvious exaggeration (for instance, “I’m going to kill my opponent at the polls”). Finally, you can’t knowingly say things that cause severe emotional distress or incite others to “immediate lawless action.”

In 1951, the Supreme Court concluded in Dennis v. United States that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government.

4. Students’ Speech
Students have limited rights of free speech while in school. In 1986, Bethel School District v. Fraser upheld the right of a school to suspend a student for making an obscene speech. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988, supported a school’s right to censor student newspapers. However, many states are now passing laws to grant broader First Amendment protections to student speech.

5. Offending Your Friends and Coworkers
You don’t have the right to say whatever you want in someone else’s home or other private setting. And, as an employee, believe it or not, you have no free-speech rights at your workplace. The Constitution’s right to free speech applies only when the government — not a private entity — is trying to restrict it. For example, an employer can legally fire an employee whose car bears a campaign bumper sticker he doesn’t like.

It’s a different matter for government employees. In Elrod v. Burns, the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the Constitution prohibits government employers from discharging or demoting employees for supporting a particular political candidate.

The law also prohibits speech that shows clear intent to discriminate or sexually harass.

It also prevents employees in medical or financial fields from discussing confidential information outside of work.

6. Expressing Your Political Views
The law has never permitted Americans to protest in any way they wanted. While the government can’t control what you say, how you say it must be subject to what the courts consider an appropriate time, place, and manner.

Legal authorities have a responsibility to protect the safety of attendees at political gatherings and to protect protestors themselves. If authorities think you pose a sufficient risk, you can be restricted to a Free Speech Zone. These have been used since the 1980s, principally to contain protestors at political conventions.

House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. They also have this authority at National Special Security Events. These events have included state occasions, of course, but also basketball championships, the Academy Awards, Olympic events, and the Super Bowl. A conviction can result in up to 10 years in a federal prison (another place where your freedom of speech is limited).

Surely · Accepted Answer

When you are only allowed to hear one side of a conversation. It is not possible for a person to make a well informed decision or choice.

MisterWack · Answer

Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Protest, etc.

Now those are limited: Misinformation, Call To Violence, Privately Owned Businesses/Social Media/Schools/Public Places Can Set Their Own Standards, Can’t Yell “Fire!” or “Gun!” In A Public Place, etc.

There needs to be limitations on rights because unquestionable rights to do whatever would be chaos. And I don’t see Govt censorship at all unless it is banning of books, banning of open minded discussion, and banning of beliefs that certain people don’t believe in / subscribe to. I’ve grown up in a society where I was taught not what to think, but how to think.

In English Class years n years ago we learned to look at 5 different articles that are Pro ____ and Con ____ . We choose our own conclusions before reading the articles then are supposed to highlight what agrees/disagrees with our argument. We then share and express our feelings & facts we’ve found, have a well meaningful constructive conversation not a pointless debate of who is right/who is wrong. With that mindset, it made me the well rounded & open minded individual I am today. The teacher made the assignment and we followed the rules, no way out of it. We came out with a better understanding on the individual topic.

Lliam · Answer

I agree with you 100%, Kelly.
The goal is to push the official narrative. It's about social engineering through propaganda. The idea is to tell people what to think and not allow them to think for themselves.

If people are prevented from receiving other information, they are incapable of developing opinions and making decisions. That's what happens in totalitarian countries.

purplepoppy · Answer

When free speech is just making up lies and childish insults what's the point of it? Even with free speech you lot hide behind dogwhistles out of cowardice. All American free speech does is drown out the voices that should be listened to. While everyone has a right to speak sometimes you've got to tell people they've had their say now shut the fuck up and play with your crayons.

LiamJHayden · Answer

I have no issue with censoring things like child pornography, but basically coercing the censorship of opposing viewpoints because "they're wrong" like they did with the vaccine naysayers (many of whom it seems might have actually been correct) should not be permitted.

lightbulb27 · Answer

100% right.  Trouble is absolute power is absolutely corrupting. At times if war they will censor. They view this as ‘close enough to war’ to justify it.  How gonna stop them?

Maybe_Maybe_not · Answer

I love social science

Avicenna · Answer

Personnel is policy. You won't get the criminals involved in the censorship out of it until they're removed, prosecuted and lose their pensions. And then people who respect constitutional rights need to be hired.

Drewtate · Answer

Absolutely. Just look at Russia & Britain. You can say what you want sure but police show up to arrest you.

MicahRaine · Answer

Yes.  The government has no business censoring us.

Anonymous · Answer

Yes the U. S. Government needs to get out of the Censorship business. Without free speech there is no honesty or accuracy.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Freely speaking from outside the U. S.: I don't care much what ''YOU'' guys think what ''freedom'' is. I have my own freedom/s :D You get what you ask for (... or vote for :D )

Gospeedracer · Answer

Freedom of speech doesn't server the elite's interests. They know that if they were to be exposed through open debate they would not only loose the strangle they have on us but would likely suffer from a harsh retellation.

mrkdvsn · Answer

Yes, of course. But most "governments" of the world only want you to express speech that goes along with the approved narrative of speech that doesn't "hurt the feelings" of mentally ill people...

dustybiker2 · Answer

I don't BS so I don't need freedom of speech.

OtterMan68 · Answer

There was never, ever any proof the gov forced Twitter, Facebook, etc to take down any post or threatened them; therefore, there was no censorship.

DtMe89 · Answer

Twitter/X and facebook are private entities. They are not protected by freedom of speech. Why don't people ever get this?

DrPepper12 · Answer

Who or what would you prefer to combat mis & disinformation or is it caveat emptor?

PeterLegg91 · Answer

Same with my country England we have no freedom of speech and new pm keir starmer is the final nail in the coffin

ChicoFromThe305 · Answer

Yep.

Fireguy17 · Answer

It would be nice.

eagle1951 · Answer

hell yeah

Is it time to get the U. S. government out of the censorship business and to bring back freedom of speech?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you think censorship has no place in a free society?

Is it time to get the U. S. government out of the censorship business and to bring back freedom of speech?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you think censorship has no place in a free society?

We're glad to see you liked this post.