Should the government allow complete freedom of speech?

Post Reply New Topic

Private property allows for widespread censorship. So you can't expect widespread free speech in a laissez faire capitalist society. We already have free speech issues as it is, in fact one of the problems the occupy movement brought to light to is the fact that their isn't many places were people can freely discuss politics without getting coerced. If people today have trouble finding large public areas for free speech, I cant imagine the nightmare that would result in a 'libertarian' capitalist society. If people are getting pushed into small free speech zones where no one can hear, whats the point? Protests aren't supposed to be convenient.

You'd still be free to hold a protest on public (i.e common land) grounds. A minarchist government would not stop cities from owning parks and streets, and if the people of that city wish to hold a protest there they would be free to.

Do remember, everyone has the right to free speech in their own home. You can say what you like when no-one can hear you.

Free speech should not be "unlimited" because if somebody says something stupid and it causes people to die (like the whole "yelling 'FIRE' in a theater" example), s/he could get away with causing those deaths by claiming free speech as a defense.

Also, some people could be driven to violence by the bigots who have their limits taken off of them. Some as*hole could go on TV and promote genocide, and - if s/he's charismatic enough - people might try to commit genocide. On the flip side, people who hate the genocide-promoter could kill him/her instead!

I know these are extreme examples, but they COULD happen. We know how stupid and evil some people are.

What is "hate speech", and why should it be illegal?

If people try to commit genocide because of someone on the TV telling them to, then they will be punished, quite simply. Genocide is illegal, and allowing someone to advocate that won't somehow allow people to get away with committing it.

I think you need a much stronger connection between speech and consequence before you can criminalize it.

I firmly believe that the best way to deal with people spouting genocidal nonsense is to give them all the microphone cable that they want. They can fill their boots, for all I care, until they start giving people instructions that create a present an immediate threat of violence.

"Go out and kill all the Jews," is protected speech. "Take these bricks of C4 and set them off in the synagogue," is incitement.

We are presumed to have Free Will. Just because someone recommended genocide does not mean one has to follow through on the recommendation.

ruveyn

A simpler statement would be that all free speech should be allowed as long as it doesn't impinge on another's rights as an individual.

"Your rights end where my nose begins."

You swing your fist towards to a centimetre of my nose and I am within my rights to punch your face in. Self defence, y'see?

We're not talking about violence... we are talking about freedom of speech.

I am not sure how we jumped from that to my aggressive simian behavior... but I'll not discuss it since it is WILDLY off topic.

You would be within your rights to punch him in the face, but punching his face in would be excessive.

Freedom of speech would be great in an ideal world, in the real world some limits are essential.

There should also be a distinction between FREEDOM of speech and RESPONSIBILITY for what you say/publish.

I can say whatever I want about you, but if it's false and harms you, I am civilly liable for those damages.

I can incite people to violence, but I can be criminally charged for the harm it creates.

Holding someone accountable for their actions is not automatically an infringement of a right.

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.
Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.

And the critics are correct. "Hate speech" is a political term, not a legal one. It allows those in power to vilify any message they don't approve of when under traditional freedom of speech, you are only accountable if you incite an act of violence against a person or a group.

Even in the short time and limited application of "hate speech" in America, it is being abused to basically make people afraid to say anything that isn't "politically correct" and stifle honest discussion of ideas because of who might be offended by the statement.

We have a constitutional right to insult other people.

ruveyn

Which is not hate speech... There are both legal and political definitions... but the one thing the have in common is a thread of oppression...

Though... this country forgets one thing... we have the right to "The pursuit of happiness." We have no right to BE happy