Is Free Speech good?

[Epluribus Unum]

Free speech is a legal policy.

Non-legal institutions can impose whatever restrictions they want, its still free speech.

Free speech only gets violated when people start getting legal penalties for their opinions.

In the US the words "I'm going to kill the president" are illegal btw.

Thats is Threat of committing Murder, both Illegal Criminal Threatening is against the law, and Murder is also!

But if you changed it to I hope the President is Murdered thats not illegal!

[Sao Nova Europa]

Yes, freedom of speech is good and not just because it is more efficient and productive (allowing free discussion of ideas is a key factor in progress). It is also about freedom of expression and thought, freedom of people to be individuals instead of drones.

Also, guarantees of freedom of speech exist exactly to allow people to espouse unconventional, unpopular views. Conventional, uncontroversial opinions ("today is a sunny day", "I like coffee", etch) can be expressed even in the most authoritarian regimes. Guarantees of freedom of speech exist to allow individuals to express ideas that the majority and/or the ones in power wouldn't wish to be heard.

[Epluribus Unum]

I lived in Florida decades ago, New England now !

Ah.

Sorry, its just when I think of American Cubans, I generally think of Florida.

Don't be sorry, I am not upset or offended, Civil Discourse is discussion. We do not know each other and therefore anything said should not be held against the other as some form of attack.

I think these principles have been lost in the last few years!

[Epluribus Unum]

Yes, freedom of speech is good and not just because it is more efficient and productive (allowing free discussion of ideas is a key factor in progress). It is also about freedom of expression and thought, freedom of people to be individuals instead of drones.

Also, guarantees of freedom of speech exist exactly to allow people to espouse unconventional, unpopular views. Conventional, uncontroversial opinions ("today is a sunny day", "I like coffee", etch) can be expressed even in the most authoritarian regimes. Guarantees of freedom of speech exist to allow individuals to express ideas that the majority and/or the ones in power wouldn't wish to be heard.

HERE HERE!!!!!


Also its good for people with opposing views to fail, often we hear a vacuum of ideas never challenged knowing if implemented it would be devastating consequences!

[Gravlen]

With the constant changing of culture and ideas and the ever changing "New Words", is freedom of speech good? And is it necessary for a free people?

I wanted to make this a Poll, but have not the experience to do so, I would say from my point of view; Without free speech there can no exchange of ideas, no comprehensive talks on solutions. I know words make peoples emotions go hay wire, but aren't we as a people strong enough to ignore bombastic, offensive language? Furthermore what is to be gained by limiting words?

Is the end result of a selective word pool, and subject pool good for the growth of man? I do not think so, and who chooses the words?

Give me your comments below!

The question isn't if there should be some limits to freedom of expression, but where exactly to draw the line.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Yes, for the most part.

[Hansdeltania]

Frankly, I believe that there should be a limit as to when free speech ends and when it becomes a potential threat.

"Black people need to get out of our country" is free speech. Legally, I would have no issue, but I would have definitely have some moral opposition in allowing it to stand.

"Let's kill all black people" crosses the line—it partially constitutes a threat (statement of intent but no time or date) and should not be taken lightly as "free speech."

"We're gonna kill all black people in three days" definitely constitutes a threat, and I will not accept that as free speech neither legally nor morally.

[Epluribus Unum]

With the constant changing of culture and ideas and the ever changing "New Words", is freedom of speech good? And is it necessary for a free people?

I wanted to make this a Poll, but have not the experience to do so, I would say from my point of view; Without free speech there can no exchange of ideas, no comprehensive talks on solutions. I know words make peoples emotions go hay wire, but aren't we as a people strong enough to ignore bombastic, offensive language? Furthermore what is to be gained by limiting words?

Is the end result of a selective word pool, and subject pool good for the growth of man? I do not think so, and who chooses the words?

Give me your comments below!

The question isn't if there should be some limits to freedom of expression, but where exactly to draw the line.

No LINE! Unless its against the law IE: Threatening, A Call to Action it should not even be questioned!

[Sao Nova Europa]

Frankly, I believe that there should be a limit as to when free speech ends and when it becomes a potential threat.

"Black people need to get out of our country" is free speech. Legally, I would have no issue, but I would have definitely have some moral opposition in allowing it to stand.

"Let's kill all black people" crosses the line—it partially constitutes a threat (statement of intent but no time or date) and should not be taken lightly as "free speech."

"We're gonna kill all black people in three days" definitely constitutes a threat, and I will not accept that as free speech neither legally nor morally.

That's where I stand too.

There is a difference between stating controversial/racist views (which should be legal) and actively calling for violence.

[Epluribus Unum]

Frankly, I believe that there should be a limit as to when free speech ends and when it becomes a potential threat.

"Black people need to get out of our country" is free speech. Legally, I would have no issue, but I would have definitely have some moral opposition in allowing it to stand.

"Let's kill all black people" crosses the line—it partially constitutes a threat (statement of intent but no time or date) and should not be taken lightly as "free speech."

"We're gonna kill all black people in three days" definitely constitutes a threat, and I will not accept that as free speech neither legally nor morally.

Speech is not even questioned, both the ladder are already Illegal, and considered Criminal Threatening! Thats my point, why do we need to limit words when we have laws that limits there uses already.

If someone said I wish all those Cubans would go back to Cuba, that is mean but legal and should not be questioned, had they said Those Cubans better go back to Cuba or else? Now that almost a call to action and might be investigated.

We have millions of laws, we do NOT need more!

[Epluribus Unum]

Frankly, I believe that there should be a limit as to when free speech ends and when it becomes a potential threat.

"Black people need to get out of our country" is free speech. Legally, I would have no issue, but I would have definitely have some moral opposition in allowing it to stand.

"Let's kill all black people" crosses the line—it partially constitutes a threat (statement of intent but no time or date) and should not be taken lightly as "free speech."

"We're gonna kill all black people in three days" definitely constitutes a threat, and I will not accept that as free speech neither legally nor morally.

That's where I stand too.

There is a difference between stating controversial/racist views (which should be legal) and actively calling for violence.

We agree, and those words are already illegal! Yelling "FIRE" in a theater is illegal causing panic, unless of course there is indeed a fire!

[Gravlen]

The question isn't if there should be some limits to freedom of expression, but where exactly to draw the line.

No LINE! Unless its against the law IE: Threatening, A Call to Action it should not even be questioned!

So... no line, but there needs to be a line?

Exactly.

[Epluribus Unum]

No LINE! Unless its against the law IE: Threatening, A Call to Action it should not even be questioned!

So... no line, but there needs to be a line?

Exactly.

Where did I say that? No Line unless you break the law! If thats your proverbial line then yes.

[Gravlen]

That's where I stand too.

There is a difference between stating controversial/racist views (which should be legal) and actively calling for violence.

We agree, and those words are already illegal! Yelling "FIRE" in a theater is illegal causing panic, unless of course there is indeed a fire!

That is false, by the way. A popular myth.

It's time to stop using the fire in a crowded theater quote

[Gravlen]

So... no line, but there needs to be a line?

Exactly.

Where did I say that? No Line unless you break the law! If thats your proverbial line then yes.

I mean, you are reading what you're writing, yes?

"No line" would mean no restrictions.
"No line unless you break the law" is meaningless, since we then could make a law banning, well, all speech and that would be within what you're saying.

You say 'A line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed (the law)'. That's something most people agree on. The main question in that case, however, is where you draw the line - that means, what the law is and should be.

So as I said, and you disagreed with: The question isn't if there should be some limits to freedom of expression, but where exactly to draw the line.

[Disgraces]

Fuck no. Free speech means that hate speech is allowed. Hate speech being allowed leads to violence. Violence leads to death.

[KingFerdinand1]

Absolutely. Free Speech Is What Seperates Us From Authoritarian Leftish Politics Like Communism.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

As long as it doesn't kill people, then yes.

(if you're confused, I mean using such speech to incite immediate violence)

[Gutaiai]

Fuck no. Free speech means that hate speech is allowed. Hate speech being allowed leads to violence. Violence leads to death.

Banning hate speech will just lead to those who use it becoming a protected class. They'll be stuck in an echo chamber of their own ideas to radicalize and then turn and harm the population.

This is why I think free speech includes hate speech, as the ideas may be uncomfortable, but banning it would lead to a slippery slope down what constitutes as "hate speech" (i.e it could extend to anything that's against the government). And it would harm society as a whole through increased radicalization of those you seek to destroy.

[Disgraces]

Fuck no. Free speech means that hate speech is allowed. Hate speech being allowed leads to violence. Violence leads to death.

Banning hate speech will just lead to those who use it becoming a protected class. They'll be stuck in an echo chamber of their own ideas to radicalize and then turn and harm the population.

This is why I think free speech includes hate speech, as the ideas may be uncomfortable, but banning it would lead to a slippery slope down what constitutes as "hate speech" (i.e it could extend to anything that's against the government). And it would harm society as a whole through increased radicalization of those you seek to destroy.

What about r/incels?

[Dollystana]

Absolutely. Free Speech Is What Seperates Us From Authoritarian Leftish Politics Like Communism.

Stop tr*ll.

(By the way can I get away by saying tr*ll instead of the other? Yeah I dont think so)

[Gutaiai]

Banning hate speech will just lead to those who use it becoming a protected class. They'll be stuck in an echo chamber of their own ideas to radicalize and then turn and harm the population.

This is why I think free speech includes hate speech, as the ideas may be uncomfortable, but banning it would lead to a slippery slope down what constitutes as "hate speech" (i.e it could extend to anything that's against the government). And it would harm society as a whole through increased radicalization of those you seek to destroy.

What about r/incels?

There's nothing holding you back from raiding subreddits you deem unfit. Besides, reddit isn't that great due to the hivemind nature of the site.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

What about r/incels?

There's nothing holding you back from raiding subreddits you deem unfit. Besides, reddit isn't that great due to the hivemind nature of the site.

Private companies can enforce their own rules regarding free speech, as you still have to agree to do business on their site in some way, meaning you're bound to their rules.

Also, if you can't tell, r/incels is banned.

[KingFerdinand1]

Absolutely. Free Speech Is What Seperates Us From Authoritarian Leftish Politics Like Communism.

Stop tr*ll.

(By the way can I get away by saying tr*ll instead of the other? Yeah I dont think so)

Just Because You Disagree Doesnt Make Me A Troll.

[Kowani]

Shrug.
Free Speech is good when used in a manner that contributes to the discussion in a meaningful way, elevating the discourse. It is not an end in itself, and may be necessarily restricted when the contributions of any particular group serve for opposite purposes.