Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Elwher]

I am against the government punishing hate speech at all.

So people should be able to see whatever they want, regardless of consequences?

Regardless of governmental consequences, yes. If other individuals wish to say things about the haters, socially ostracize them, or even fire them that's the sort of consequences their speech should bring about.

[Sanghyeok]

So people should be able to see whatever they want, regardless of consequences?

Regardless of governmental consequences, yes. If other individuals wish to say things about the haters, socially ostracize them, or even fire them that's the sort of consequences their speech should bring about.

Alright, so if I'm not wrong you support corporate/individual ability to limit hate speech, but not government.

[French Volta]

If you say “I support freedom of speech, BUT...”, odds are you don’t actually support free speech.

[The Restored Danelaw]

If you say “I support freedom of speech, BUT...”, odds are you don’t actually support free speech.

I don't actually support it. I just see it as a necessary evil because there's no surefire way to make sure what I disagree with becomes illegal without leaving a potential "my own opinions might become illegal later" channel open.

[Elwher]

Regardless of governmental consequences, yes. If other individuals wish to say things about the haters, socially ostracize them, or even fire them that's the sort of consequences their speech should bring about.

Alright, so if I'm not wrong you support corporate/individual ability to limit hate speech, but not government.

Exactly. If I run a website, I should have the absolute right to decide who can post on it and what they can say, just as I do on my front lawn. The government should have no right to control what I or anyone else says, be it on the internet or in a public park.

[Shazbotdom]

With Hate Speech being too broad, it would be severely hard to enforce.

Now, yell "Fire" in a crowded place that will cause injury or death to others, incite a riot, call for the extermination of a group of people, and I understand banning that, but if it's just something you don't like someone saying? Nah. The Government should have no place banning that.

Now, if you are in a business and you say something that the owner/manager doesn't like? They have a right to kick you out. Your rights do not extend to where it infringes upon the rights of another person.

So, can an employer fire his employees on such grounds?

If something an employee says goes against the Code of Conduct for that business, then yes, they can absolutely get fired.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It sorta has in places like Germany or UK. In the UK, people are said to be getting arrested left and right over tweets.

I'm not sure "left and right" is an accurate descriptor. There's a few high publicity cases, but it's not a common experience.[/quote]
No matter how few, if there were no restrictions on free speech, the number would be 0.

That's not hate speech laws, that's Germany's very expanisve anti-Nazi code.

That's a form of hate speech law, don't be obtuse.

Because the CD story is one whipped up by free speech warriors to try and make a victim narrative out of a good optics case where the legal reality is very clear cut.

You keep alluding to a certain legal reality which you've yet to explain.

[Albrenia]

Although I disagree with hate speech laws since they're daft and do reduce freedom of speech, I will say that I've yet to see evidence of western nations with them using them to an onerous extent. It mostly seems that every now and then some poor idiot makes a joke that goes viral and gets in trouble or something.

Are there any stats on large numbers of fines or arrests for hate speech laws, by the way?

[Austin Tribe]

I think free speech shouldn't be restricted. Censoring speech is like telling a man he can't eat a steak because a baby can't eat it. But at the same time intentionally hateful speech should have some limits. People are very impressionable and many take things they see on the internet to heart.

[Kowani]

It sorta has in places like Germany or UK. In the UK, people are said to be getting arrested left and right over tweets.

I'm not sure "left and right" is an accurate descriptor. There's a few high publicity cases, but it's not a common experience.

No matter how few, if there were no restrictions on free speech, the number would be 0. [/quote] Real shame that people have shitty views.

That's not hate speech laws, that's Germany's very expanisve anti-Nazi code.

That's a form of hate speech law, don't be obtuse.

...No it's not.

Because the CD story is one whipped up by free speech warriors to try and make a victim narrative out of a good optics case where the legal reality is very clear cut.

You keep alluding to a certain legal reality which you've yet to explain.

sigh
CD violated the communications Act of 2003, whose section 127 makes it illegal to "send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network." There's no real way to argue that a nazi salute isn't going to be perceived as offensive unless you're either a)a free speech warrior or b) a Nazi. Neither of those are going to pass the UK's "universal person" doctrine.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Real shame that people have shitty views.

I might say something mean right about now, about your views. If I had the wit required to do so.

...No it's not.

It is. Germany prohibits expressions of Nazism, because Nazism is a hateful ideology. At any rate, the thread is "Free Speech: Yes or No?" not "Hate Speech: Yes or No?" All censorship is relevant here.

sigh
CD violated the communications Act of 2003, whose section 127 makes it illegal to "send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network." There's no real way to argue that a nazi salute isn't going to be perceived as offensive unless you're either a)a free speech warrior or b) a Nazi. Neither of those are going to pass the UK's "universal person" doctrine.

My argument, and the argument of other free speech advocates, is not that CD's Nazi pug video is not a crime. My argument is that it ought not be a crime. Section 127 is a joke that guts freedom of speech, it should be taken off the books. Any law that prohibits a moderately edgy Youtube video about a Nazi pug is a law that should be changed. Section 127 would make famous Monty Python sketches illegal, if it were to be enforced consistently.

Or are you going to try to argue that any speech that is offensive or obscene should be prohibited?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Alright, so if I'm not wrong you support corporate/individual ability to limit hate speech, but not government.

Exactly. If I run a website, I should have the absolute right to decide who can post on it and what they can say, just as I do on my front lawn. The government should have no right to control what I or anyone else says, be it on the internet or in a public park.

So people should be able to control speech on their own property, but the government (which owns public parks) shouldn't be able to control speech at all. Property rights, except for the Government?

[Shazbotdom]

Exactly. If I run a website, I should have the absolute right to decide who can post on it and what they can say, just as I do on my front lawn. The government should have no right to control what I or anyone else says, be it on the internet or in a public park.

So people should be able to control speech on their own property, but the government (which owns public parks) shouldn't be able to control speech at all. Property rights, except for the Government?

Because, at least within the United States, we have the 1st Amendment protecting the public from the Government censoring Free Speech. While the 1st Amendment does not apply to private property, at all.

[Sanghyeok]

Exactly. If I run a website, I should have the absolute right to decide who can post on it and what they can say, just as I do on my front lawn. The government should have no right to control what I or anyone else says, be it on the internet or in a public park.

So people should be able to control speech on their own property, but the government (which owns public parks) shouldn't be able to control speech at all. Property rights, except for the Government?

What do you believe?

[Elwher]

Exactly. If I run a website, I should have the absolute right to decide who can post on it and what they can say, just as I do on my front lawn. The government should have no right to control what I or anyone else says, be it on the internet or in a public park.

So people should be able to control speech on their own property, but the government (which owns public parks) shouldn't be able to control speech at all. Property rights, except for the Government?

Correct. The government does not have an opinion, it is representative of all opinions. If a piece of property is jointly owned, it would take agreement from all owners to enforce speech policy; the same is true of the government, and as there has never been a speech policy that gained unanimous acceptance, there should be none enforced.

[Telconi]

Regardless of governmental consequences, yes. If other individuals wish to say things about the haters, socially ostracize them, or even fire them that's the sort of consequences their speech should bring about.

Alright, so if I'm not wrong you support corporate/individual ability to limit hate speech, but not government.

Corporations and individuals don't have police and prisons, they're not really comparable.

[Sanghyeok]

Alright, so if I'm not wrong you support corporate/individual ability to limit hate speech, but not government.

Corporations and individuals don't have police and prisons, they're not really comparable.

I wasn't trying to say they're wrong, just seeing if I understood their argument correctly.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I respect the rights of all persons to post and quote each others views, with personal respect, this respect is given it is not earned, and it is called Democracy and Freedom of Speech.

I will never put any persons nations on ignore for any reasons, and I am not the only one on NS.

The ignore buttons should be abolished.

I Rest My Case.

GMS.

[West Leas Oros 2]

So people should be able to control speech on their own property, but the government (which owns public parks) shouldn't be able to control speech at all. Property rights, except for the Government?

What do you believe?

Either we should have no limits on speech, or we should allow the Government the same rights to suspend speech as we do private enterprise. It irks me when people assume only the government can be a threat to one’s freedom. Of course, they tend to go with the “bUt iTs vOLuNtArY” excuse.

[West Leas Oros 2]

So people should be able to control speech on their own property, but the government (which owns public parks) shouldn't be able to control speech at all. Property rights, except for the Government?

Because, at least within the United States, we have the 1st Amendment protecting the public from the Government censoring Free Speech. While the 1st Amendment does not apply to private property, at all.

My argument here is that it probably should.

[Sanghyeok]

---

We are discussing free speech in society, not just forums.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I respect the rights of all persons to post and quote each others views, with personal respect, this respect is given it is not earned, and it is called Democracy and Freedom of Speech.

I will never put any persons nations on ignore for any reasons, and I am not the only one on NS.

The ignore buttons should be abolished.

I Rest My Case.

GMS.

The ignore button isn’t censoring other posters. It’s not even as powerful as blocking someone on Facebook. All it does is hide their posts from you unless you click on it. It’s one click. No real change. It’s not like the mods are removing posts from ignored users.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Alright, so if I'm not wrong you support corporate/individual ability to limit hate speech, but not government.

Corporations and individuals don't have police and prisons, they're not really comparable.

I mean, there are private prisons. Although those are government contracted. And I’m sure some company has a merc squad out there.

[Shazbotdom]

Because, at least within the United States, we have the 1st Amendment protecting the public from the Government censoring Free Speech. While the 1st Amendment does not apply to private property, at all.

My argument here is that it probably should.

So your rights should trump those of the property owner? You are on THEIR property, they should not bend their will on how they run their business, home, social media platform, etc. to whatever YOU want them to do.

[Sarderia]

So people should be able to control speech on their own property, but the government (which owns public parks) shouldn't be able to control speech at all. Property rights, except for the Government?

Correct. The government does not have an opinion, it is representative of all opinions. If a piece of property is jointly owned, it would take agreement from all owners to enforce speech policy; the same is true of the government, and as there has never been a speech policy that gained unanimous acceptance, there should be none enforced.

I respect and support this opinion. If it is my private lawn I can regulate whatever is said on my lawn; but a country is everyone's lawn, and no-one should be able to tell me not to say anything.