Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Freiheit Reich]

Dennis Prager once defended spousal rape too, but you'll see these same people wave their "Christian morals" in the faces of others.

None of these people have any right to call themslves moral until they get it into their heads that there are few things on this planet more vile than sex crimes.

There was a famous LDP politician (Japan) who last month said women "fake rapes to get attention". She was also claiming earlier that all transgender individuals need to be sterilised.

It does happen quite often and the victim tends to suffer more than the woman falsely accusing him (even if she is found guilty). She brought up a serious problem in society. The criminal justice system is loaded against males for almost any kind of criminal or civil case. Why do transsexuals need to be sterilized if they can't have children? That seems like an odd and unnecessary demand.

Cowboys’ accuser has made false rape claims before, husband says

https://apnews.com/696e2f99e33938aa257e89aa5ddc922d

The Latest: Irvin says rape allegation cost him millions

https://apnews.com/article/b7c3b84d8504 ... 6f5a79b745

Duke University Lacrosse Team Rape Scandal

https://www.thoughtco.com/duke-lacrosse ... dal-971039

[Witiland]

Would you rather have 100 percent free speech and say whatever you like, however your life is constantly threatened by people and you are always in fear, or would you rather he platform your saying your free speech on (lets say twitter) takes down your post before anyone sees it and feel perfectly safe. Censorship saves lives, sometimes somebody says something stupid, everybody sees it, and boom their lives are ruined. However with censorship (in certain cases of course) those things are taken down as soon as possible before anybody sees it, therefore protecting the general public, and the person who posted that.

[Cameroi]

thoughtlessness isn't freedom,
i think that's the point to keep in mind that's too often missed and i believe too often missed deliberately to make a point which has neither logical nor moral validity.

[Disgraces]

No hate speech allowed.

[Shin-Mutsu]

Would you rather have 100 percent free speech and say whatever you like, however your life is constantly threatened by people and you are always in fear, or would you rather he platform your saying your free speech on (lets say twitter) takes down your post before anyone sees it and feel perfectly safe. Censorship saves lives, sometimes somebody says something stupid, everybody sees it, and boom their lives are ruined. However with censorship (in certain cases of course) those things are taken down as soon as possible before anybody sees it, therefore protecting the general public, and the person who posted that.

Censorship saves lives sometimes, but we also need to be careful how we use it. In Western European countries, for example, hate speech laws exist but are rarely used.

[Witiland]

Would you rather have 100 percent free speech and say whatever you like, however your life is constantly threatened by people and you are always in fear, or would you rather he platform your saying your free speech on (lets say twitter) takes down your post before anyone sees it and feel perfectly safe. Censorship saves lives, sometimes somebody says something stupid, everybody sees it, and boom their lives are ruined. However with censorship (in certain cases of course) those things are taken down as soon as possible before anybody sees it, therefore protecting the general public, and the person who posted that.

Censorship saves lives sometimes, but we also need to be careful how we use it. In Western European countries, for example, hate speech laws exist but are rarely used.

That's why sometimes we need to strictly enforce the law and other times we don't.

[Yasluila]

Ideally I should be able to say whatever I want to whomever I want, and they should be allowed to do the same to me. Now of course this is all excluding actual threats of harm which should be taken in a more serious manner.

[Elwher]

I don't see how the principle of free speech would be different in this case, particularly when said private entities are so few and so massive. This is not a matter of people in general rejecting and ignoring someone's ideas, but rather a few people who are appointed undemocratically having that power.

And yet, Government forcing a company to allow any speech on their service (either social media, in a store, or whatever) is an infringement upon that business owner's property rights and right to operate their business in whatever way they see fit. It's pretty standard for a business entity to have a clause within their Terms of Service that states they can refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any given reason. That is the pinnacle of business practice.

How would you like it if someone was saying things that are upsetting to your employees (take a pick of things that could be said), and you couldn't kick them out because the Government would then come down on you like a ton of bricks for "Violation of that person's freedom of speech"? You would hate that. And as a Manager of a restaurant, if someone was causing issues within my place of employment by saying things that were upsetting to other customers, or my employees, I should have the right to boot their ass out of my business.

I don't think that the government has any right to force companies to allow any speech, just as I do not think the government has the right to force companies to censor certain speech. A company, just like an individual, should have the choice of what speech they wish to allow on their property, either physical property or websites.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Would you rather have 100 percent free speech and say whatever you like, however your life is constantly threatened by people and you are always in fear, or would you rather he platform your saying your free speech on (lets say twitter) takes down your post before anyone sees it and feel perfectly safe. Censorship saves lives, sometimes somebody says something stupid, everybody sees it, and boom their lives are ruined. However with censorship (in certain cases of course) those things are taken down as soon as possible before anybody sees it, therefore protecting the general public, and the person who posted that.

Hmm. Would I rather be gagged but safe, or free to speak but in danger? That is an extremely hard choice, I can't even answer it. It thankfully, is not the only choice available.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Censorship saves lives sometimes, but we also need to be careful how we use it. In Western European countries, for example, hate speech laws exist but are rarely used.

That's why sometimes we need to strictly enforce the law and other times we don't.

If every country with hate speech laws enforced their laws to their strictest reasonable extent, it would be a nightmare. Comedians left and right would be arrested. People would be in trouble with the police for the mere posting of rap lyrics. Great works of dark comedy (Monty Python, The Producers), would be censored as hate speech for being "grossly offensive."

[Sanghyeok]

Would you rather have 100 percent free speech and say whatever you like, however your life is constantly threatened by people and you are always in fear, or would you rather he platform your saying your free speech on (lets say twitter) takes down your post before anyone sees it and feel perfectly safe. Censorship saves lives, sometimes somebody says something stupid, everybody sees it, and boom their lives are ruined. However with censorship (in certain cases of course) those things are taken down as soon as possible before anybody sees it, therefore protecting the general public, and the person who posted that.

Hmm. Would I rather be gagged but safe, or free to speak but in danger? That is an extremely hard choice, I can't even answer it. It thankfully, is not the only choice available.

I agree that there is not only two choices, one can be safe and only somewhat limited in their speech. See German anti hate speech laws, for example.

[Black Hetmanate]

I think incitement of violence should be the border. Calling somebody names is just rude and should be subject to social ostracism. In most situations, it is not subjective whether you called on to kill someone or not. Compared to other proposed criteria (hate, personal emotions etc.) it's the most objective and clear one to judge from law's perspective.

[Shazbotdom]

And yet, Government forcing a company to allow any speech on their service (either social media, in a store, or whatever) is an infringement upon that business owner's property rights and right to operate their business in whatever way they see fit. It's pretty standard for a business entity to have a clause within their Terms of Service that states they can refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any given reason. That is the pinnacle of business practice.

How would you like it if someone was saying things that are upsetting to your employees (take a pick of things that could be said), and you couldn't kick them out because the Government would then come down on you like a ton of bricks for "Violation of that person's freedom of speech"? You would hate that. And as a Manager of a restaurant, if someone was causing issues within my place of employment by saying things that were upsetting to other customers, or my employees, I should have the right to boot their ass out of my business.

I don't think that the government has any right to force companies to allow any speech, just as I do not think the government has the right to force companies to censor certain speech. A company, just like an individual, should have the choice of what speech they wish to allow on their property, either physical property or websites.

That's my point. Free speech should only be protected from Government Censorship, while a private company should be allowed to do whatever they wish on their property, web servers, etc.

[Sanghyeok]

I don't think that the government has any right to force companies to allow any speech, just as I do not think the government has the right to force companies to censor certain speech. A company, just like an individual, should have the choice of what speech they wish to allow on their property, either physical property or websites.

That's my point. Free speech should only be protected from Government Censorship, while a private company should be allowed to do whatever they wish on their property, web servers, etc.

I believe the government has a right to censor certain kinds of speech, particularly those that pose a threat to people or groups of people such as hate speech or speech inciting violence.

[Elwher]

That's my point. Free speech should only be protected from Government Censorship, while a private company should be allowed to do whatever they wish on their property, web servers, etc.

I believe the government has a right to censor certain kinds of speech, particularly those that pose a threat to people or groups of people such as hate speech or speech inciting violence.

If we take a strict reading of inciting violence, FDR's Day of Infamy speech to Congress would not have been allowed.

[The Alma Mater]

I think incitement of violence should be the border. Calling somebody names is just rude and should be subject to social ostracism. In most situations, it is not subjective whether you called on to kill someone or not. Compared to other proposed criteria (hate, personal emotions etc.) it's the most objective and clear one to judge from law's perspective.

What about slander ? Should I have the freedom to say that person X is a childmolester despite knowing he or she is not ?

[Shazbotdom]

I think incitement of violence should be the border. Calling somebody names is just rude and should be subject to social ostracism. In most situations, it is not subjective whether you called on to kill someone or not. Compared to other proposed criteria (hate, personal emotions etc.) it's the most objective and clear one to judge from law's perspective.

What about slander ? Should I have the freedom to say that person X is a childmolester despite knowing he or she is not ?

That would fall under Civil Law, not Criminal Law.

[Bluepillar]

oop. "Freedom of speech with hateful speech restricted by government and individuals"

meant to pick this one. this one is prettty common in the western world, but it's closer to this in Europe. People think the US isnt like this, but "fighting words" exist (and saying one to me is an excuse i can use in a court of law to not face charges for beating the snot of the person saying it), and so do actual criminal charges linked to screaming racial slurs at someone, tho as i understand it, that's in connection with a ceime... like harassment.

People legitimately cannot say whatever they want in this country. The US has freedom of speech in the constitution, but it's not absolute jn any way.

[The Alma Mater]

What about slander ? Should I have the freedom to say that person X is a childmolester despite knowing he or she is not ?

That would fall under Civil Law, not Criminal Law.

It is still a freedom of speech issue.
Perhaps in general: is it allowed to deliberately spread lies and misinformation to hurt others ?

[Bluepillar]

pure freedom of speech? nice idea....but where is it? it doesn't exist. it's a fairy tale haha

[Bluepillar]

That would fall under Civil Law, not Criminal Law.

It is still a freedom of speech issue.
Perhaps in general: is it allowed to deliberately spread lies and misinformation to hurt others ?

it is not. if harm is wrought bevause of what's published/said, cant u actually get a prison sentence in many countries for this?

in the US you can be if you include a call to action, iirc. which is part of why 100% pure free speech is both a bad idea and a fairy tale.

[Shazbotdom]

That would fall under Civil Law, not Criminal Law.

It is still a freedom of speech issue.
Perhaps in general: is it allowed to deliberately spread lies and misinformation to hurt others ?

Actually, it's not. Defamation of Character/Slander/Libel is not protected speech. Therefore, if someone wants to file a lawsuit against someone for DoC/Slander/Libel, they are legally allowed to.

[The Alma Mater]

It is still a freedom of speech issue.
Perhaps in general: is it allowed to deliberately spread lies and misinformation to hurt others ?

Actually, it's not. Defamation of Character/Slander/Libel is not protected speech. Therefore, if someone wants to file a lawsuit against someone for DoC/Slander/Libel, they are legally allowed to.

So that's a restriction on free speech. Nice.

Next step: should we expand that to a general rule like "you can say whatever you want, as long as you can back it up" ?
Which, to move towards the Godwin, would e.g. make Holocaust denial legal as long as you can offer evidence that has not already been debunked a million times.

[Shazbotdom]

Actually, it's not. Defamation of Character/Slander/Libel is not protected speech. Therefore, if someone wants to file a lawsuit against someone for DoC/Slander/Libel, they are legally allowed to.

So that's a restriction on free speech. Nice.

Next step: should we expand that to a general rule like "you can say whatever you want, as long as you can back it up" ?
Which, to move towards the Godwin, would e.g. make Holocaust denial legal as long as you can offer evidence that has not already been debunked a million times.

It's not a violation of freedom of speech if someone files a lawsuit. Unless you want it to be okay for someone to claim you're a child molester. THat, or if we just allow people to beat the fuck out of others who commit libel against them.

[Resilient Acceleration]

So that's a restriction on free speech. Nice.

Next step: should we expand that to a general rule like "you can say whatever you want, as long as you can back it up" ?
Which, to move towards the Godwin, would e.g. make Holocaust denial legal as long as you can offer evidence that has not already been debunked a million times.

It's not a violation of freedom of speech if someone files a lawsuit. Unless you want it to be okay for someone to claim you're a child molester. THat, or if we just allow people to beat the fuck out of others who commit libel against them.

I mean, Singapore's entire free speech crackdown system is based on libel laws. Instead of a secret police, the government just sue critics and independent media to oblivion, even when the case isn't too strong, until they give up or go bankrupt.