I'm all for freedom of expression having limits, does that shock you?

[Julie4]

[RingOfFire]

It doesn't shock me either way, but whether or not I agree with you depends on what you think those limits are.

The classic legal proposition that says you can't yell fire in a crowded theater is acceptable to me. But any infringement on an opinion whatsoever is unacceptable.

It doesn't matter whether you think what someone is saying is true or false and it doesn't matter whether you agree with their opinion or not. It is a basic human right to allow people to say anything they want as long as it doesn't promote a clear and present danger to other people.

Being offended by what someone says is not a valid reason to prevent them from having a right to say it. If it was no one would be allowed to say anything because there's always somebody who is offended by everything.

If you want to preserve your right to say what you want to say then you must accept the same right for others who disagree with you.

That is apparently a concept that has been lost in recent generations. It is the loss of that concept that threatens our freedom, not the speech of people who disagree with each other.

[Julie4]

The limits that seem reasonable to me are what the law says in my country.

" prohibition of defamatory (damaging to reputation) or insulting (degrading) comments, whether directed at individuals or groups. "

Incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination: The law prohibits speech inciting racial or religious hatred, or directed against people because of their sexual orientation, origin or handicap. Denialism: The 1990 Gayssot law prohibits denial of the existence of crimes against humanity, in particular denial of the Holocaust. Apology for terrorism: Any act or comment glorifying or encouraging acts of terrorism is punishable by law.

Invasion of privacy: Speech that violates the privacy of others, such as the disclosure of personal information without consent, is prohibited. Copyright and intellectual property: The use of protected creations without authorization, particularly in public speech, is illegal. Public security and public order: Speech that may undermine state security or incite public disorder, such as calls for riots, is punishable. Respect for religious beliefs: Although France is a secular state, the law prohibits insults to a person or group because of their religious beliefs, while preserving the possibility of criticizing religions themselves.

[RingOfFire]

It's all about interpretation. And that's the problem. A rogue government can you use these laws to persecute the citizens simply by interpreting it the way they want to.

Speech is complex. If we do not give people broad immunity to say whatever they please, we are trampling on a basic human right.

Finding speech insulting or offensive is not sufficient reason to ban it.

Finding speech "racist," or "sexist," or "homophobic" or "xenophobic" or "islamophobic" or disparaging to any religion or lifestyle it's not a reason to ban it.

I have a right to my views as long as I am not threatening anyone specifically or directly and you have no right to prevent me from expressing them.

[Julie4]

The texts are clear here and as Montesquieu said, "Judges are only the mouth that pronounces the words of the law".

Here it's easy to understand when you don't respect the limits of the law.

[RingOfFire]

Judges are human beings and subject to as much corruption as every other human being.

Those who put government over the wisdom of the people are doomed to a life of tyranny.

[Julie4]

Unlimited freedom of expression can also lead to the worst kind of anarchy.

[Julie4]

And tyranny

[RingOfFire]

How so?

[Julie4]

If your freedom of expression is without limits you leave the possibility for extremist ideologies to emerge in society with the terrible consequences that this can have, as shown for example by the French revolution, Nazism and other events.

[RingOfFire]

So because there is evil in the world and some people are evil, we should take away our freedoms so as not to offend them?

No thanks.

There are two famous sayings from the founders of America that tell it all for me:

"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!" Patrick Henry, 1775

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin

Give me *LIBERTY* above all ! Me

I was born free, and I intend to stay that way. Government imposition on unfettered speech is the first step into tyranny.

[Julie4]

And because some governments have taken advantage of depriving people of their freedom that we should not limit freedom of expression?

In reality, if judges are corruptible, it's a feeling you have to apply to every human being, so your unrestricted freedom of expression is no less tyrannical than totalitarian governments.

Thanks to such freedom of expression, the most extremist ideologies have been able to flourish, resulting in millions of deaths (I don't consider this to be anecdotal).

What we're talking about here is striking a balance between freedom of expression, which is necessarily necessary, and the limits it must have.

[RingOfFire]

There's no balance. The mere fact that some people may take offense to some speech is NOT a moral or acceptable grounds to prohibit such speech.

PERIOD, end of sentence.

[Julie4]

Again, it depends on what's in your speech. For example, I shamelessly criticize religion, LGBTQ communities, etc. Nobody goes to prison for this type of speech in my country, and it's the same in the US. But you pretend to believe that freedom of expression would stop at that if you didn't limit it.

In your notion of unlimited freedom of expression, Hitler's speeches are totally acceptable, as are calls for murder, genocide, etc. etc.

[RingOfFire]

I already said that there are some few things that should not be allowed. "Yelling fire in a crowded theater," for example. But it is a miniscule slice of the universe of speech.

Being offended by speech is NOT a grounds to ban it. And that is exactly what the Marxist Democrats in America are trying to ban. They are trying to ban "misinformation." I DESPISE that word. Your "misinformation" is my truth. And I have EVERY RIGHT to both believe it and express it to others whether you approve or not. If it offends someone TOO BAD FOR THEM.

Who is going to decide what you can and cannot say? Angels? The tooth fairy?

No thanks.

[Julie4]

Nazi rhetoric was initially a minority phenomenon, but it became contagious, even before Hitler became Chancellor. Because you don't seem to know much about crowd behavior.

Just because extremely violent speech would be rare if there were no limits on freedom of expression, doesn't mean it can't have terrible consequences. Just look at the unreasonableness of crowds.

[RingOfFire]

I don't care about "crowd behavior." I am not responsible for anyone's behavior but my own.

Words are not tyranny, nor are they violence. The fact that some people may behave badly is their fault not mine.

[Julie4]

You can't want something and ignore its consequences.

god laughs at men who deplore the effects of wich they cherish the causes.

[RingOfFire]

The American Marxist Democrat left is using exactly the tool you are so anxious to give to government to persecute their political opponents in a way that would make Vladimir Putin (or Adolph Hitler for that matter) proud.

They are trying to prosecute President Trump for telling a crowd of people to "Peacefully and patriotically," march to protest the 2020 election results. They say that he "incited an insurrection" and are trying to put him in prison for it when he is the leading candidate to be president again in the November 2024 election.

What you are promoting is using the power of government to persecute anyone who does not go along with their agenda. You are not preventing tyranny, you are promoting it.

If you do understand crowd behavior then you understand how putting such power in the hands of government -- which is inevitably corrupt -- is how tyranny happens, not by giving the people more freedom.

[Julie4]

Once again you don't want to see the consequences of what you advocate. You're a fan of crowds, I hate them, nothing is more easily manipulated than crowds.

Hitler's rise to power was partly due to the large audience he gained through his speeches, which made him one of Germany's leading politicians. Consequently, it was your idea of total freedom of expression that enabled such a man to come to power.

My position is quite simple: I consider freedom of expression to be important, but without limits it can be dangerous.

As Anatole France wrote

"I have a love of reason, not a fanaticism for it. Reason guides us and enlightens us; when you have made it a deity, it will blind you and persuade you to commit crimes."

You can replace the word "reason" with "liberty" and you'll get

"I love freedom of expression, but not fanaticism. Freedom of expression can guide us and enlighten us; but when you have made it a deity, it will blind you and persuade you of crimes."

[RingOfFire]

Your power of perception needs work. I am anything but a fan of crowds.

With that, I think we have said it all and will have to agree to disagree.

I will leave you with a compliment. Your debating skills are impressive for your age. I wish you well...

[Julie4]

Thank you very much sir, I thank you for this debate, which took place in politeness. Good luck to you. 🤝

[nolabels]

Freedom of expression, or freedom of speech?
Those are two different things.
I'd like to be clear as to the intent of your question.

There are limits to freedom of speech, such as falsely crying out a call of "Fire" in a public place, where the ensuing chaos could hurt people, or worse.

Limiting freedom of expression?
In what ways?

As long as someone expresses themselves in their own ways, with my view being that those expressing themselves are being respectful of others while doing so being a very important point, I have no problems with people expressing themselves as they want to.

Expressing oneself as wished by the individual, that's no problem to me.
Try forcing that expression upon me or the world and I say no, they've gone too far.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the subject.

Cheers.

[Unap0logetic_]

I agree with this, while we’re all entitled to our opinions, some things are just better left unsaid and that’s something that a lot of people don’t agree with.

[strateguy632]

So who decides what you can't say? Besides you? Facebook? Zuckerberg? Who?

[Unap0logetic_]

Ok, I’ll give you an example… People who make jokes about someone’s deceased family members. Is that funny to you? Would it still be funny if it were to happen to you in a moment of grief? That’s what people do. That’s an example of things are better left unsaid. You may get away with it a few times, but not everyone is playing when it comes to disrespect. There are some people who really take it personally the things that you say online and they WILL make an example of you. It’s just not smart..

[Unap0logetic_]

But to answer your question, everyone should have the respect and common courtesy to not say certain things and to know some things are off limits. If you don’t know the basic principles of that, then why be on social media and or in public with other people? As I stated earlier, you may get away with it a few times because some people know when to pick and choose their battles. But I’ve seen people snap and murder people over the smallest things. Not everyone is playing.

[OlderAndWiser]

As I recall, you are from France. You don't have the same history of civil liberties that we enjoy in the US, so there is no surprise that you would hold that belief.

[Julie4]

Yeah im French

[OlderAndWiser]

In Europe, it seems that most people want the government to do more to take care of the masses and to protect them, and that requires some compromise on civil liberties.

[RavVid]

I was far more accepting of limits in the past before I got onto GAG. Americans are very strong on freedom of speech and I have come to cross over to their side of the fence on this.

For myself I am not going to be needlessly offensive or incite to violence. Those are my own limits even if the state has laws against them. Generally my compatriots have those same values.

However, I am highly concerned at the rise in censorship and proscribed speech... and even thoughts in the UK with silent prayer being an arrest-able offence. Some groups are allowed to incite violence.

So I think a stronger stance on freedom of expression is necessary now.

[morganherrel]

well said

[strateguy632]

Welcome... to joining us, we who are losing ours both online and in conversation.
. Except on truth social. People go there insted of getting censored here!

[strateguy632]

Start counting how many times you get censored erased on facebook or here or there, link below, n see for yourself!
A website that wants VISITORS TRAFFIC better not "safe space" censored, that chased away more users.
https://truthsocial.com/

[RavVid]

@strateguy632 You were largely the cause for my view changing. I didn't agree at first but then saw you were right. Thank you for that.

[Julie4]

Freedom of expression must necessarily have limits

[RavVid]

What would you see the limits being? Incitement and defamation would be my two majors. As the left like to insult, I have lost my inhibitions in that respect and am more than willing to respond.

[Julie4]

If you put no limits on freedom of expression then the most extreme ideologies can take root in society. You can call for murder, genocide, Nazism and so on.

[RavVid]

Incitement is undoubtedly dangerous and cannot be accepted. I would rate what you have listed as incitement.

What is even more dangerous is uneven handling of it, as favoring one group leads another group to feel a need to band together and protect themselves.

Marxist frameworks inherently promotes this because an oppressed class is defined and by implication an oppressing class. Doing something about the oppressors is thereby legitimized. It is the fundamental core of left wing identity politics.

Left wing identity politics is possibly what really needs to suppressed. :)

[loveslongnails]

This is a real can of worms. I think you should be "free to say what you wish" when it comes to opinions, but not to promote certain types of misinformation or disinformation, and therein lies the rub. Plus, there's the whole question of privately owned social platforms and what they legally can censor.

For example, if someone is promoting the "flat Earth conspiracy theory", it doesn't hurt anyone or incite hatred and violence. But let's say they promote some sort of genetic superiority theory and call for the death of all those who don't fit their chosen category, that creates an entirely different scenario, especially when "believers" act on it.

[DJB72]

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of reach are not synonymous concepts. Unfortunately with the internet everyone has forgotten that.

Then they get bent out of shape when someone says something controversial like "it's impossible for a male with XY chromosomes to become a woman no matter how much surgery he has" instead of what the 0.01% of people who control the content by being louder than everyone else dictate Western society "should" believe.

[msc545]

People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

[DJB72]

Which is where "reach" comes into play

[msc545]

I think I understand that but could you elaborate please?

[DJB72]

Pre-internet these lunatic ideas were around, but they didn't have access to the homes of maybe half the planet's population. As a result the ones that were easily debunked tended to die out fairly quickly.

The problem with the internet is it has algorithms that feed the user what they looked at recently and as a result you can see the same article from a hundred sources over six months and unless you have a photographic memory if you only get 80% of it each time, cut in different places, it looks like different texts. 30 years ago it would have been consigned to the trash long before it reached 99.9% of the readers/viewers

[msc545]

Good points and I understand now - thanks!

[zagor]

Depends on what you mean by limits. I don't think most people would object to limits on expressing yourself by wanking off outside an elementary school. Or firing up violent mobs. But if you think the government should imprison people for expressing unpopular or offensive positions on social media, yes, I would find that too far.

[Texaskid1]

There has always been some limits to freedom of expression in US.

If I directly incite violence I could get into trouble. If I slander someone I could get sued. If make a false claim of an attack or fire I could also get in trouble.

[strateguy632]

The difference is those were categories!
Amd those categories facebook hosts! Not censor.
now they erase and even punish anything 'anti' or "unwanted" or "selective disinformation " depending in the week. As the liberal narrative mutates.
Or list of words...

[strateguy632]

Consider a positive statement "that actor is one of the handsomer negros or naggers with letter i. "
Just the word list !
that is a slippery slope getting worse and worse.

[Joshydavid25]

Well, I never thought about it from you much... But, I wouldn't say it does.. You are a feminist, and left leaning.. But at the same time, you're not against debating, and whatnot..

[Julie4]

How do you know if I'm left-wing and what is your definition of left-wing?

[Joshydavid25]

Well, I didn't say left wing, but left leaning.. Being a feminist automatically pulls you more to the left IMHO.. 😂..

[Julie4]

Why? And once again, what is your definition of the left?

[Joshydavid25]

A lot of what feminist stand for today definitely lean heavily left.. Left as in advocating for socially "liberal" or "progressive" ideas or overly emphasizing them at least... Economically being more for socialism and usually following some sort of Marxist idealogy..

[Julie4]

I don't see where I'm defending a Marxist ideology, and what exactly is your definition of "liberal"?

[Joshydavid25]

I didn't say you were, I said usually following some sort of Marxist idealogy.. I think you even mentioned something about being more left leaning.. But, a "Liberal" is the opposite of a "Conservative". . LOL..

[Julie4]

I'd like you to find me where I said I had a left leaning, and I don't see exactly where I'm some kind of "Marxist".

Tell me exactly how you define left and "conservatism".

I mean define, what ideologically defines the left, what defines conservatism.

[Joshydavid25]

I believe it was in a question quite a while back. I would have to look through the archive that is your questions.. And I never said you did, not all left leaning people care for Marxism.. Just that at the core of leftist idealogy it's marked in Marxism..

The left is all about social justice, and revolutionary type of ideals.. They look to change on what is already established and feel that they can improve on the institutions.

The right or more conservatives align more with Libertarians.. Meaning they support private property rights, smaller or little government, and believe they people should have the ability to basically pull themselves up by the bootstraps.. They feel that institutions are already strongly set in place and while needing to be updated Don't ultimately need revolutionizing..

[Julie4]

So by your definition, the French revolutionaries were right-wing.

[Joshydavid25]

LOL.. Hey maybe they were..

[Julie4]

No, because the distinction between left and right comes from the French Revolution. At the time, the right was defined as monarchists, and the left as those who adhered to the ideals of the French Revolution.

And the French revolutionaries were in favor of private property and so on.

[Joshydavid25]

Hey, well the right aligns more with freedom and responsibility for your own actions.. So if that's what the French Revolutionaries subscribed to, then it seems that they were in fact actually Right leaning..

[Julie4]

The Revolutionaries are of the left, but the they does not oppose what you say, in fact go read their declarations of human rights.

But they are left-wing.

[Joshydavid25]

What makes them Left-wing.. Maybe in they're day they were considered Left, but by today's standards they are considered pretty far right..

[Joshydavid25]

Their day***..

[Julie4]

Even before the French Revolution, the notion of left or right didn't exist, and the right was the supporters of the monarchy, who had a different conception of society than the revolutionaries.

For more on this subject, read counter-revolutionaries such as Edmund Burke, Louis Bonald and Joseph de Maistre.

[Julie4]

Do you agree with what the conservative thinker Jospeh de Maistre says? ↗

[Joshydavid25]

Yeah, true I figured the 2 party system is a more recent phenomenon.. But unfortunately certain sides have become associated with certain beliefs.. But okay I will give it a read madam..

[AviatorTom]

Not much shocks me. This is a non-shocker.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did get a mild electric shock once, while working on a live electric power circuit.

[Makeushiver]

Everyone wants limits to freedom of expression. As long as it's others expression. If your wish comes true the cops should be knocking on your door any minute about your expression here

[noohair]

Look at England. They attack one side and one day they will lose their rights to think and be free. It could happen here too. Once you allow limits you could find out that what you think is ok will be censored.

[strateguy632]

I'm all for freedom of expression and opinions. Period. @jennz6 said it best! 🥇

[OtterMan68]

no, many people want the government to curtail speech. It's a sad fact of today's world.

I personally don't trust the government to control speech

[KostasKouvalis]

No. It doesn't shock me. What are your limits?

[Julie4]

French Law

" prohibition of defamatory (damaging to reputation) or insulting (degrading) comments, whether directed at individuals or groups. "

Incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination: The law prohibits speech inciting racial or religious hatred, or directed against people because of their sexual orientation, origin or handicap. Denialism: The 1990 Gayssot law prohibits denial of the existence of crimes against humanity, in particular denial of the Holocaust. Apology for terrorism: Any act or comment glorifying or encouraging acts of terrorism is punishable by law.

Invasion of privacy: Speech that violates the privacy of others, such as the disclosure of personal information without consent, is prohibited. Copyright and intellectual property: The use of protected creations without authorization, particularly in public speech, is illegal. Public security and public order: Speech that may undermine state security or incite public disorder, such as calls for riots, is punishable. Respect for religious beliefs: Although France is a secular state, the law prohibits insults to a person or group because of their religious beliefs, while preserving the possibility of criticizing religions themselves.

[Friendlybro79]

The first amendment in the US has limitations so no I'm not personally shocked.

[jahaims]

I'm not surprised. I already knew a majority of people are morons.

[LazerMan]

limits bad as ones setting limits can pic arbitrary good things to limit

[gatixek710]

Are you French? Of course I'm not surprised.

[Julie4]

Yeah im French and?

[gatixek710]

And you don’t understand freedom.

[Avicenna]

No, you’re European, do it’s not shocking.

[genericname85]

you're a woman. not a surprise at all.

[Julie4]

What does what I think have to do with the fact that I'm a woman?

[genericname85]

certain ways of thinking are very common in women and not in men and vice versa.

[Jennz6]

Free speech is better

[DrPepper12]

No. All speech has limits.

[Anonymous]

No, you're french

[Julie4]

And?

[Opinion Owner]

French don't really like it when others express themselves. At least in my experience.

[Consent]

not shocked