Is Free Speech Unconditional?
 

I suppose I should've titled the thread 'SHOULD Free speech be Unconditional?'

Well, real free speech would includes the likes of "It is perfectly reasonable to fuck 4-year olds", "The Beslan massacre was a masterpiece" and "It is pefectly right for hostages to be beheaded". Free speech is fine in theory, but impossible in practise. There will always be limits to "free" speech, and so it will always be conditional.

The argument there of course is that saying it's ok to be-head someone is very different to actually be-heading them.

...and in a perfect world, people would argue against that position in a clear-headed fashion. In reality, anyone who said that in this country would be prosecuted for incitement to murder. If such incitement laws weren't in place, the general consensus would be that such laws should be enacted. I feel that one of the greatest restrictions to true free speech is the will of "society", where it be moral or otherwise.

yeh, its perfectly fine for people to say "It is perfectly reasonable to fuck 4-year olds" but they shouldnt be allowed to do the act

There is a certain amount of fascism that can be beneficial to humanity.

That's one of my points, Anal - it's NOT fine for people to say this, according to general consensus. Otherwise if people were fine with this, why complain about the act itself? I'm certainly violently against the above statement I quoted, and yes, it means that I have my own limits to free speech too.

What if someone jokingly shouts "fire" in a crowded hall and causes hundreds of people of die during the stampede to get out?

Exactly, Mr Demon Guy. Good thread, by the way.

EDIT - Nice Gudrun Ensslin portrait.

I agree, but I prefer totalitarianism.

Yes, free speech is unconditional, otherwise it's not free speech. There's a world of difference between tolerating an opinion and endorsing it.

If you don't know how people feel, how can you adequately respond to them? How can you adequately expect to persuade them thay they are wrong? How can you adequately expect to have any kind of truly meaningful discourse with them? And how can you possibly expect to see the bigots for what they really are? How will you stop them building up support? A number of scattered bigots is certainly preferable to a group of organised, empowered underground bigots.

i'm for free speech but speech must with freedom comes responsibility. words are powerful, the ellicit emotions in people, they can influence thought and behavior. want an example? bush making false connections between saddam and al-qaeda. want a demonstration? look:

only morons dare to dismiss of the power of words.

All cultures restrict free speech by their nature. I don't think people restricting their speech socially is wrong; it ought to be encouraged, quite frankly.

With that said, I don't think the government should take any intiative.

Quite so. With all rights come responsibilities.

Words that repulse the vast majority will empower and motivate a select few to commit immoral, horrifying acts. But we must to be a position where we can hear fringe views because society, if it is to be a mutually beneficial construct, needs to be able to deal with things.

slander and libel are limitations of free speech. so are in the united states "fighting words". obscenity is also constitutionally not protected. there are also laws agains sedition.

im not saying that the law should be the standard by which free speech is measured, but the law points towards certain practical limitations of an ideal principle.

--
edit: sexual harassment is another obvious limitation. imagine if a woman had to hear "hey baby, i want to fuck you in the ass and slice your throat while you cry" every day at work. free speech? i don't think so... [sorry for the unpleasant example, i was just trying to make my point crystal clear]

IMO, free speech is only wrong on the basis of society's acceptance. Either they accept it as being within bounds or reject it, as was the case with Don Imus. You could argue whether it was or not, but the heat was on his employers, and so it was ultimately rejected by society. I wish people would reject the likes of Anne Coulter and Glenn Beck too. But there is an audience for just about anything, so i think the system does work in a way by policing itself.

In order to be free we must all be slaves to the law. That's the first thing we were taught in law class.

Libel laws can rest perfectly easily within a system of free speech. 'Free speech', I think, is best seen as the right to speak honest opinion rather than the right to spout than bigotry, anger or misinformed nonsense. It also allows for the right of reply. That would be the inherent idea of rights with responsibilities.

oh yeah you have a pretty reasonable view of it. i wasn't refuting your arguments, i was addressing a general simplistic view of free speech that was carelessly spouted in other posts.

ps- found this



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Surely truly free speech would INCLUDE the right to spout bigotry, misinformation etc.?

ha ha, so next time your doctor misdiagnoses you, gives you the wrong prescription, nearly kills you, and you sue him for malpractice, he's going to cry "free speech"??

"So what if I misdiagnosed him? It's my human right to do that. Don't tell me what to say."

Such a scenario wouldn't be entirely fantastic in this country, !@#$%!. I was being a bit Devil's Advocate there, though. Of course, free speech shouldn't permit the right to spout any old bullshit, in my opinion. I'm interested in the US First Amendment in this respect. Have there been any legal challenges as to what people in the US can get away with saying?

But surely artistic expression, satire, and political opinion should retain greater freedom.

Also, I challenge that abolsute freedom of speech is even possible. Consequences follow from opinion even in an anarchistic state.

pbradley - indeed, absolute free speech is a utopian ideal. The political opinion one is interesting - do you feel that someone in the US would be permitted to call for the US to become an Islamic state, for example?

Sure. The advocation of Islamic values is just as reasonable as advocating capitalistic, Christian, or socialistic values.

Certainly in the case of pure freedom of speech, but I was talking about putting free speech in the context of a civilised society.

Pure free speech would never work, because the incidences of bigotry etc will always incite some people to action and they will cause oppression for others, therefore removing their right to the same free speech. That's why I think it best to have te right to legal redress for such instances, since it forces people towards a position where they must have solid, evidential reasons for what they say.

Hip Priest - can't disagree with your point of view on this.

Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus

"Whut 'chu talikin' about, Dinonysius?"

Should I be boring and get all legal on yo' asses?

Yes? Good.

Well, I know very little about the US situation, but in England we have a myriad of legislative measures to curtail free speech. Probably the most important nowadays is Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, incorporated into our law by way of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10 states:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

You'd be surprised at how widely that second paragraph is interpreted.

For what it's worth I think unconditional free speech is an idealistic and unworkable notion, but that's just me. Being right. :D

hm, there's a lot of things you can't get away with saying in the u.s., and for good reason. calling for the assassination from a president, even in a joking manner, will earn you a swift visit from the secret service. i once read the story of a successful marijuana grower and dealer who lived right in the middle of d.c. in his apartment-sized greenhouse. his roommate, drunk, once called the white house and started spouting nonsense. the secret service raided the house and found a) a stupid, drunken roommate, and b) an assload of marijuana plants, growing lights, hydroponic equipment, etc.

but there IS a lot that you can say as long as it isn't a call for destructive action. you may have seen louis theroux's "the most hated family in america", about the phelps family who tours the country saying that "god hates fags". as long as you are promoting ideas and not inciting action that disturbs the peace, your speech is protected.

i'd recommend starting with wikipedia, they have a decent starter page on the subject, plus articles on landmark legal decisions, etc.


of course they can; though the same first amendment decrees the separation of church and state, so while they could say anything they want they would likely face a number of legal challenges on their rise to power.

So that's where my mom got it from.

If you are talking about the legal protection of free speech, then there should definitely be limits (and there are).