I had a conversation with Gemini AI and the AI believes that there should be limitations to speech, but doesn't know how to implement them. I'm wondering how people feel about it.
Should there be any limits to free speech? If so, where should those limits be drawn and how should they be enforced?
No, not even hate speech should be censored and the reason why is America, and many other countries legal systems rely around precedent being set in other cases. So essentially even by banning hate speech like neo nazis the problem isn't banning those evil things the problem is it sets a precedent that from then on could be used to take away more and more free speach rights with every passing year.
You also run into problems because, what is the definition of hate speech? People are VERY liberal these days with the words Nazi, Fascist, Racist etc. The words have largely lost their power. Most people just tune you out when they hear those words now.
If we start banning words when I say, "Islam is evil." Which I whole heartedly believe a lot of people would say that's hate speech but frankly this is just a pretty mild opinion and belief I have towards an Ideology I deem evil for many reasons.
This is why freedom of speech is all or nothing. There is no middle ground either you're allowed to speak your mind freely even awful things, or you are oppressed. These same people bitching about censoring hate speech would be 100% against it if the other party was for it.
I've seen people on social media that prior to the Trump election were all like "These poor immigrants" one minute and then when they saw how many Latino votes that trump, they called it misogyny and tick tock was flooded with lefties joking about them being deported for being stupid. I'm sure you're a kind caring person if moment you hear someone say something you disagree with you want their life to be ruined.
I can understand being pissed at someone for their politics I even understand hating someone for their politics, but you have to draw the line on the other side of ruining people's lives out of spite. Also, before anyone throws a fit about me dick riding trump or something I voted for Camilla reluctantly.
Thanks for the opinion, it's very well thought out. I have a follow-up question. You said all or nothing, does that include the current laws the USA has about free speech, or would you like to see them abolished?
For example, true free speech would mean that people could incite violence, slander, libel, "yell fire in a theater". Those are all illegal in the USA right now. Do you think those laws should be abolished in the name of true free speech? Or is some censorship needed?
I hear arguments like that a lot and I see where they come from but it's not same thing. When you incite violence you are trying to get people to harm others and the problem then isn't the words it's the goal of your words and the results they achieve. That's why at protests things normally only start to get really heated until someone gets violent and then the gloves come off. Neo Nazi's get arrested for protesting all the time exercising their free speech but when they're arrested it's not their speech that's the problem it's the violence it's causing.
Even saying nasty things like saying "All Jews deserve to die." isn't and shouldn't be illegal unless it leads to violence most of the time protesters are screaming these nasty things yes but the goal in most cases of protests is change not violence. When Violence becomes the goal it's now a riot and that's a threat to public safety just look at what happened with the Black Lives Matter thing. It was supposed to be helping people but in my opinion it just set race relations back by at least 5 years.
As for slander that's not free speech that is deliberately spreading lies to cause someone harm in some capacity like costing them money or getting them hurt. Again, the problem isn't the words themselves it's the fact they are being used to commit a separate crime also yelling fire in a theater is a public safety threat many people have died in stampedes from fears of fire.
My point is freedom of speech is not the same as using speech to commit assault if that makes sense because then it is assault which is in fact a crime and for good reason.
With freedom of speech, we have the right to peaceful assembly but when assembly is no longer peaceful illegal. One of the other things people forget is freedom is a double-edged sword and how you use your freedom should and will dictate the consequences you face. It's my right to call someone at the bar an asshole but I shouldn't be surprised when I get punched either. Like I said the danger is the problem.
Right, I agree. But what I'm saying is as Americans we have more freedom of speech than any other country, but it's still not truly free speech. For example, a person can't say "everyone need to go and physically attack (insert person's name)", that's illegal and the offender can be forced to serve jail time if convicted for violating speech law. Should people have truly free speech, or are laws like that (which technically censor speech) needed?
I kind of see where you are coming from still like I said but you can incite violence and do all these things without speaking a word the reason the words are used is it's easier. If we had true freedom of speech by that extreme definition it stops being a right and becomes anarchy there is a difference.
The words are not the problem they're just used because it's the easiest way to achieve those goals. You can incite violence in theory just by pointing angrily at someone in theory.
I don't think you're understanding my question. I get that speech isn't the sole driving source of the law, but the law still technically censors speech. Is that cencorship ok? Or should all speech be unequivecally uncencored?
The simple short answer is yes, those things should be illegal for practical and ethical reasons but part of why those don't count is they actually don't meet the American qualifications for free speech. Remember there's a difference between free speech and anarchy and the US. I wanted to be as thorough as possible but banning those words is still acceptable with the American interpretation of free speech.
What is protected? Spoken and written words: The right to say and write what you want Symbolic speech: The right to express yourself through actions like wearing clothing, reading, performing, and protesting What is not protected? Obscenity and child pornography: The government can ban this media Defamation: Private and public figures can sue for statements that defame them Speech that violates the law: Speech that is a threat, harassment, or intended to provoke unlawful action Who is protected? Individuals: The First Amendment protects individuals from government punishment for their speech Public universities: Public universities cannot punish students for protected speech What restrictions can be applied? Time, place, and manner: Restrictions can be placed on when, where, or how speech is communicated Content neutrality: Laws must be content neutral, meaning they can't target a particular viewpoint or expression
SO, from the perspective of the American definition of free speech these are in fact violations and frankly we have some of the loosest free speech laws in the world and that's a good thing. Scottland tried to Sue JK Rowling because she said there was a difference between biological woman and trans woman.
By the way just in case to be clear I'm not trying to come across as hostile or "I have to prove this guy wrong." I like debating things with people because it's fun as long as everyone stays civil with each other.
No, I appreciate it, i don't think you're being hostile at all. I am American and love the "American Version" of free speech. I see the small amounts of censorship we have on speech as necessary, but I love being able to speak my mind and I love that everyone else in the country can too. I'd hate to live in a place where I could get penalized for having what is viewed as the wrong opinion. Basically all I was getting at is as important as freedom of speech is in the USA, it still isn't unconditionally free speech, but I think it's the best possible version of freedom of expression that exists and wouldn't want it any other way.
I agree and that's a fair point but there are definitely certain scales to this, and they don't apply the same way as things like political discourse do. The ethics of republicans and democrats democracies and dictatorships are very different from screaming fire in a theater. I might think communists are stupid and naive, but they don't actively make my life worse or endanger me as long as they express their views peacefully. Yelling fire in a theater is an inherently bad thing to do because the only thing it does is cause panic and endanger people
Which is why calling people stupid is legal, and yelling fire is not. It's still technically censorship of speech, but it's censorship that I can get behind.
This is the typical push of today. To put limits on our speech and freedom. The founders claimed we get these rights from our Creator, not government and that government exists to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS.
Everyone, in these messed up times seems to think we need government to step in and start scaling back our rights. For our own good of course.
This country has had free speech for roughly 250 years. We don't need corrupt politicians and the woke who is offended by fucking EVERYTHING rescuing from our freedoms but some government infringement on rights.
Free speech should not promote hatred on the basis of racial, religious, cultural, gender, age, disability, or medical identity beyond well deserved and gently given character criticism due to malicious behaviour or criminal negligence.
Free speech is not unlimited speech. It is the freedom to offer encouragement and be kind to others, not the freedom to offend or injure others with words or illusory claims and impressions.
True free speech by definition is what you describe as unlimited speech. I think what you're saying is you have an objective opinion of what you want free speech to mean, rather than the actual definition of free speech. I think that what you're saying is that you want people to be able to say whatever they want, as long as it is nice. Is that correct?
It's not really a question of morals or not. Just in general. Should people be able to say whatever they want, or should there be laws against certain speech? If so, what are the laws and how are they enforced?
One of my opinions which has changed since being on GAG has been that the US model is better than those that generally apply in commonwealth countries. I probably wouldn't have said that a year ago.
My right to not be offended is always going to conflict with your right to call it as it is. There is no easy solution to that.
Overall though I now think the US model is as good as it gets.
"My freedom to swing my fist stops at your nose." If it's not hurting anyone, it's allowed. If it can be shown/proven in court to have hurt someone, you get some appropriate punishment like a fine or jail time depending on severity/number of offenses. This is mostly already how it works though so nothing would really change.
No there should be no limits to Free Speech, it is an Absolute.
You either have Free Speech or you do not, there is no limit, the one wanting to censor speech do not want to hear what they dislike which is why they throw 'Hate Speech' around so much. There is no ‘Hate Speech’. Only speech that they (the Left) hate! And, Truth sounds like Hate to those who Hate the Truth.
So no limits whatsoever? What about the limits that currently exist in America? Such as it's illegal to incite violence and it's illegal to slander, it's also illegal to use speech to incite panic that could endanger peoples lives such as "yelling fire in a crowded theater". Those three items make absolute free speech impossible, because they are criminal offenses. Do you think the laws should be abolished?
No, that is why those Laws exist to cover incitement to commit violence, incitement to cause panic and slander someone name. To say/do these things you do so in the full knowledge of what society's response will be via the Police and the Courts System. A persons Freedom of Speech should never be curtailed because another is offended by it, and it is more than likely that the others Freedom of Speech is going to offend someone else, that is how discourse works.
I think the limits we have now are good: you can't do things like threats, inciting criminal acts, fraud, and so on. But everything else goes otherwise.
The question was more about asking your personal opinion. If no free speech laws existed at all, would it be a bad thing? Are they adequate as they currently stand, or do we need more?
well outrage and people deciding never to listen to you again after saying outrageous shit. or like cirtiquing you harshly or pointing out how what you said is wrong or bad in an aggresive hostile way (depening how bad the thing you said was) to show you this is not an ok thing to say. let the typical course of social interactions just play out.
i think civil discourse should naturally set baundaries. i think forbidding to say bad things makes bad arguments even stronger, cause then all the tin foil hat are gonna pick up on it and get even more into it cause now it's forbidden so they feel justified.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Should there be any limits to free speech? If so, where should those limits be drawn and how should they be enforced?
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
u 1 y
1 y
1 y
1 y
1 y
Most Helpful Opinions