Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[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.

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

Slander and libel are to me a different matter, because they relate to veracity of oneʼs statements rather than the strengh of one's opinion. What you mentioned can also be classified as a lie or not. I believe lie should be punished.

[Shazbotdom]

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.

Except, I feel that Libel laws only relate to a private individual(s) to a private individual(s). The US Government cannot sue someone for Libel because that would be against the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. While, say, someone could file a lawsuit against a person within the Federal Government for Libel. A few have said that they plan on it against Trump and his lawyers. Especially since there is a claim by the Administration that a dead person voted when it is a living person with a name that is nearly an identical name of a deceased individual.

[Page]

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.

Singapore also uses the police to suppress speech. I don't remember the name but there was a young man who got in trouble for making fun of the leader or some historical figure, I don't remember what he specifically said but I do remember it would be considered pretty vanilla mockery in the West. They put him in a mental institution and I think he eventually got a visa to the US.

[Sanghyeok]

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 ?

I think that's completely different from the issue of hate speech though, but I'm not sure what way to handle it would be best.

[Elwher]

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 ?

Yes, but person X has the right to call you out in civil court to force you to either prove it or pay damages. That falls under the non-governmental consequences of speech that I support, as it is triggered by an individual reacting to what was said, first, and second, does not involve any possibility of jail time.

[Page]

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 ?

I think recourse against slander should be stronger for regular people and weaker for public figures.

I also think it's very important to draw a clear line between accusations and insults. Like if you say someone looks like a child molester that shouldn't count because you're not actually saying they are one but just trying to degrade them.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

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 ?

Kind of yeah. It needs to be very hard for anyone to sue you for slander, lest we have a system where any rich or powerful person or corporation, when accused of severe misconduct, can immediately sue. That would be no justice at all.

[Sanghyeok]

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

Kind of yeah. It needs to be very hard for anyone to sue you for slander, lest we have a system where any rich or powerful person or corporation, when accused of severe misconduct, can immediately sue. That would be no justice at all.

Certainly, we don't want society to become even more dominated by the rich. Yet we should also make it so suing when there are violations is easy.

[Greater Miami Shores]

There are many questions surrounding how much free speech a society should have. Some argue that hate speech should be banned, others advocate for "pure free speech", with no restrictions at all. So, what it everyone's opinions regarding free speech? Should there be restrictions, what kind of restrictions should or shouldn't exist, and who decides?

Edit for my personal opinion:
I believe that there should be as few restrictions as necessary, but there are inherently damaging ideologies such as racism, sexism, religious discrimination and other forms of speech that should be heavily discouraged, if not monitored. But that is my personal opinion, and I think everyone can debate themselves.

Free Speech Yes.
What is Freedom of Speech? The right to think differently than other Persons. I respect this right of Freedom of Speech. This Respect is given it is not earned. GMS.

[Elwher]

Kind of yeah. It needs to be very hard for anyone to sue you for slander, lest we have a system where any rich or powerful person or corporation, when accused of severe misconduct, can immediately sue. That would be no justice at all.

Certainly, we don't want society to become even more dominated by the rich. Yet we should also make it so suing when there are violations is easy.

I advocate for a 'loser pays' system for all civil suits, including slander, whereby the loser is responsible for both his and his opponent's legal bills. That way, someone with a good case is not restricted from suing just because they cannot afford an attorney.

[Shazbotdom]

There are many questions surrounding how much free speech a society should have. Some argue that hate speech should be banned, others advocate for "pure free speech", with no restrictions at all. So, what it everyone's opinions regarding free speech? Should there be restrictions, what kind of restrictions should or shouldn't exist, and who decides?

Edit for my personal opinion:
I believe that there should be as few restrictions as necessary, but there are inherently damaging ideologies such as racism, sexism, religious discrimination and other forms of speech that should be heavily discouraged, if not monitored. But that is my personal opinion, and I think everyone can debate themselves.

Free Speech Yes.
What is Freedom of Speech? The right to think differently than other Persons. I respect this right of Freedom of Speech. This Respect is given it is not earned. GMS.

Except that no one should have the absolute right to say whatever they want without repercussions. If a business owner does not like what someone is saying within their business, then they (or their appointed management team) should have the authority to deny that person services within their place of business.

[Kowani]

Certainly, we don't want society to become even more dominated by the rich. Yet we should also make it so suing when there are violations is easy.

I advocate for a 'loser pays' system for all civil suits, including slander, whereby the loser is responsible for both his and his opponent's legal bills. That way, someone with a good case is not restricted from suing just because they cannot afford an attorney.

…I feel like that would just dissuade poor people even more

[Elwher]

I advocate for a 'loser pays' system for all civil suits, including slander, whereby the loser is responsible for both his and his opponent's legal bills. That way, someone with a good case is not restricted from suing just because they cannot afford an attorney.

…I feel like that would just dissuade poor people even more

My opinion is that it would make both plaintiffs and defendants more cognizant of just how good a case they have, and might lead to more settlements.

[Sanghyeok]

Somewhat relevant, but I just found out Facebook has been banned in Solomon for purposes of "preventing national division."

[Alcala-Cordel]

Somewhat relevant, but I just found out Facebook has been banned in Solomon for purposes of "preventing national division."

It's strange they pick that considering all the legitimate reasons they'd have to ban it (privacy violations, etc).

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Kind of yeah. It needs to be very hard for anyone to sue you for slander, lest we have a system where any rich or powerful person or corporation, when accused of severe misconduct, can immediately sue. That would be no justice at all.

Certainly, we don't want society to become even more dominated by the rich. Yet we should also make it so suing when there are violations is easy.

I don't think it's possible to make suing the guilty easy without making suing the innocent easy, when it comes to defamation and libel.

[Odreria]

If it's offensive to public morals it should not be allowed or if I don't like it or if it's capitalist.

[Tierra Fuego]

No free speech. As it is now, powerful people can orchestrate and nitpick any speech they don't like until it's not. I am OK trading flimsy old conceptual "free speech" for actual legally-protected "places of free expression," and hard and changeable definitions on what can't be said elsewhere. I am in favor of democracy.

Every place of free expression will have the motto: "Here be fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything here as fact."

[Odreria]

No free speech. As it is now, powerful people can orchestrate and nitpick any speech they don't like until it's not. I am OK trading flimsy old conceptual "free speech" for actual legally-protected "places of free expression," and hard and changeable definitions on what can't be said elsewhere. I am in favor of democracy.

Every place of free expression will have the motto: "Here be fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything here as fact."

Uh so in these places of free expression are people allowed to advocate an immediate genocide?

[Tierra Fuego]

Uh so in these places of free expression are people allowed to advocate an immediate genocide?

Yes. And outside these places genocide would be shut down. And we'd know immediately who suggested it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If it's offensive to public morals it should not be allowed or if I don't like it or if it's capitalist.

This statement is offensive to public morals though, because freedom of expression is held by western civil discourse as sacrosanct. So that's a self defeating axiom.

[Sanghyeok]

Somewhat relevant, but I just found out Facebook has been banned in Solomon for purposes of "preventing national division."

It's strange they pick that considering all the legitimate reasons they'd have to ban it (privacy violations, etc).

I think it was politically motivated, according to some sources.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It's strange they pick that considering all the legitimate reasons they'd have to ban it (privacy violations, etc).

I think it was politically motivated, according to some sources.

I think you're right, but they could've had a good excuse.

[Page]

No free speech. As it is now, powerful people can orchestrate and nitpick any speech they don't like until it's not. I am OK trading flimsy old conceptual "free speech" for actual legally-protected "places of free expression," and hard and changeable definitions on what can't be said elsewhere. I am in favor of democracy.

Every place of free expression will have the motto: "Here be fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything here as fact."

The only problem with that is it relies on the assumption that everywhere outside of the places of free expression is controlled by a society that genuinely strives to tell the truth. There has been no such society in all of human history.

[Sanghyeok]

I think it was politically motivated, according to some sources.

I think you're right, but they could've had a good excuse.

I look forward to when Facebook is broken up and fined for all the damage they've caused. Same with Google and Amazon.