Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Elwher]

And they have every right to do so. If you're standing on my front lawn and spouting views I do not like, I may well ask you to leave. If you're on my website, I have the same right to ask you off of it.

Sure, I'm not arguing that Facebook doesn't have the right to do so legally, but I think they're saying that the targets of Facebook's censorship are not conservatives despite their whining.

As I just said to someone whining about that (on Facebook, for irony); if Facebook is trying to censor anyone, they're doing an awful job of it. I get posts from all over the political spectrum.

[Wizlandia]

Yes. Freedom from consequence? No.

What kind of consequences are you referring to?

There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What kind of consequences are you referring to?

There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.

Such consequences, if I'm making the right inference, would defeat the purpose of freedom of speech.

[Shazbotdom]

There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.

Such consequences, if I'm making the right inference, would defeat the purpose of freedom of speech.

Just because you have the freedom to say whatever you want doesn't mean that you don't have freedom from consequences (such as your job firing you, a business banning you from their service/building/etc, or someone kicking you out of their residence if they don't like what you are saying).

Your freedoms don't trump someone else's rights.

[The Restored Danelaw]

Yes. Freedom from consequence? No.

What kind of consequences are you referring to?

The fact that people might choose not to associate with you -or let you associate with them- as a consequence of your speech. At its most extreme it might mean you losing your account in whatever social media platform you exercised your right to free speech on.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Such consequences, if I'm making the right inference, would defeat the purpose of freedom of speech.

Just because you have the freedom to say whatever you want doesn't mean that you don't have freedom from consequences (such as your job firing you, a business banning you from their service/building/etc, or someone kicking you out of their residence if they don't like what you are saying).

Your freedoms don't trump someone else's rights.

I fully agree. It's just other posters implied that those consequences could include incarceration.

[Elwher]

Just because you have the freedom to say whatever you want doesn't mean that you don't have freedom from consequences (such as your job firing you, a business banning you from their service/building/etc, or someone kicking you out of their residence if they don't like what you are saying).

Your freedoms don't trump someone else's rights.

I fully agree. It's just other posters implied that those consequences could include incarceration.

Other people have every right to impose consequences on me for my speech. The government does not. That, to me, is the essential difference.

[Ramdom state]

I would say full freedom of speech, but you can be monitored for what you say, depending on how dangerous what you said is. You will not get punished by what you say.
Also about false information, I think it shouldn't be taken down, just flagged with a "false info" tag
I agree free speech is #1 important, but it can also be extremely dangerous.

Also OP (or anybody else), if you're watching, what do you think about saying not true stuff (like the Earth if flat, or something). I think that's different about expressing opinion, but still falls under "free speech"

[Adamede]

Such consequences, if I'm making the right inference, would defeat the purpose of freedom of speech.

Just because you have the freedom to say whatever you want doesn't mean that you don't have freedom from consequences (such as your job firing you, a business banning you from their service/building/etc, or someone kicking you out of their residence if they don't like what you are saying).

Your freedoms don't trump someone else's rights.

None of those fall under “can’t guarantee freedom after speech”.

[Adamede]

I would say full freedom of speech, but you can be monitored for what you say, depending on how dangerous what you said is. You will not get punished by what you say.
Also about false information, I think it shouldn't be taken down, just flagged with a "false info" tag
I agree free speech is #1 important, but it can also be extremely dangerous.

Also OP (or anybody else), if you're watching, what do you think about saying not true stuff (like the Earth if flat, or something). I think that's different about expressing opinion, but still falls under "free speech"

If you’re going to have a state monitoring your every action might as well go all the way.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

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.

I believe in pure free speech for anything that allows the state entrance is evil. We the people should not allow ourselves to be divided and conquered by the state. Instead we should set aside minor differences and together confront enemies of humanity such as diseases, totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and China, unfriendly AI, etc.

Beware of the state. The social left enhances state power in the name of combatting discrimination while the social right enhances state power in the name of security and tradition. However have you even seen leftist leaders rolling back rightist statist legislation or vice versa? Obama never rolled back Bush’s statism. Trump never rolled back Obama’s statism. Biden probably won’t roll back Trump’s statism. When the people are divided and hating each other China and Russia creep in. Eventually if we don’t stop them America could become an English-speaking China.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm a bit old. Reading younger people's thoughts about free speech I am convinced it is first and second in the disputed issues of human rights, now.

First, because of the free-mind desire not to be denied anything of what others have to say.
Second, because of the unenforced and taken-for-granted, right to privacy.

They are incompatible.
Anything anyone legally discovers about you, they can distribute in any context they choose. Unless you're prepared to limit their freedom of speech.

As I say, I am old. I expect I will die before the struggle between free speech and privacy is settled.

[Elwher]

I'm a bit old. Reading younger people's thoughts about free speech I am convinced it is first and second in the disputed issues of human rights, now.

First, because of the free-mind desire not to be denied anything of what others have to say.
Second, because of the unenforced and taken-for-granted, right to privacy.

They are incompatible.
Anything anyone legally discovers about you, they can distribute in any context they choose. Unless you're prepared to limit their freedom of speech.

As I say, I am old. I expect I will die before the struggle between free speech and privacy is settled.

You are correct, they are incompatible. However, here in the US at least, the right to freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution while the right to privacy was created in a dubious Supreme Court decision as a penumbra of enumerated rights. Therefore, to me at least, in a conflict between them, the former should be primary.

[The Iron Lands]

I would have to say some restrictions are needed in order to keep society stable. Every person is entitled to their opinion and what they have to say about it, but when it gets personal with someone else that is kind of where I draw the line. When people start getting personal, it usually is because they want to make themselves look better. It is something I am sure every person has done, but it does not feel good when someone starts to criticize about my flaws. One thing that can get super annoying is when people try to force their opinions on to you through their free speech. I understand you feel that way, but you can't force me to change my opinions for you.

[Transjlwanja]

I don't support "hate speech" laws, though I'm in favour of what many would consider broad restrictions on expression based on on broadly-worded laws against libel & obscenity.

[Adamede]

I'm don't support "hate speech" laws, though I'm in favour of what many would consider broad restrictions on expression based on on broadly-worded laws against libel & obscenity.

Libel I can get, but obscenity? Never going to fucking happen.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I don't support "hate speech" laws, though I'm in favour of what many would consider broad restrictions on expression based on on broadly-worded laws against libel & obscenity.

How is obscenity any different?

[Elwher]

I don't support "hate speech" laws, though I'm in favour of what many would consider broad restrictions on expression based on on broadly-worded laws against libel & obscenity.

How is obscenity any different?

Equally valid question: Who defines obscenity?

[Rijk van Afrika]

I feel like I should be able to say whatever I want in my own country. Whether it's my political opinion, or a slur, anything should be fair game.

The only exception is when violence - especially against Americans - is endorsed or when people say they hate this country. It's okay to be critical, but things like kneeling is offensive to veterans like my uncle and is rude

[Cordel One]

I feel like I should be able to say whatever I want in my own country. Whether it's my political opinion, or a slur, anything should be fair game.

The only exception is when violence - especially against Americans - is endorsed or when people say they hate this country. It's okay to be critical, but things like kneeling is offensive to veterans like my uncle and is rude

I guess you could say that saying mean things about veterans triggers you. I'm sure there are safe spaces you can find where people don't do that.

[Rijk van Afrika]

I feel like I should be able to say whatever I want in my own country. Whether it's my political opinion, or a slur, anything should be fair game.

The only exception is when violence - especially against Americans - is endorsed or when people say they hate this country. It's okay to be critical, but things like kneeling is offensive to veterans like my uncle and is rude

I guess you could say that saying mean things about veterans triggers you. I'm sure there are safe spaces you can find where people don't do that.

American soldiers literally fight for freedom and our culture overseas.

[Cordel One]

I guess you could say that saying mean things about veterans triggers you. I'm sure there are safe spaces you can find where people don't do that.

American soldiers literally fight for freedom and our culture overseas.

The United States hasn't been in a single legitimate war since WW2. Everything since then has been disastrous for freedom and all the ideals America claims to stand for.

Also, like Nuro said below me: restricting kneeling goes against the idea of freedom.

[Nuroblav]

^^which is why it be a tad ironic to ban kneeling for veterans. It would be a little insulting as it was the freedom they fought for - the freedom to speak out regardless of opinion. Taking that freedom away seems a tad ironic to me.

[Odreria]

I feel like I should be able to say whatever I want in my own country. Whether it's my political opinion, or a slur, anything should be fair game.

The only exception is when violence - especially against Americans - is endorsed or when people say they hate this country. It's okay to be critical, but things like kneeling is offensive to veterans like my uncle and is rude

Yup, liberals need to learn how to grow a thicker skin

[Rijk van Afrika]

^^which is why it be a tad ironic to ban kneeling for veterans. It would be a little insulting as it was the freedom they fought for - the freedom to speak out regardless of opinion. Taking that freedom away seems a tad ironic to me.

Supporting our troops and culture is the number one concern. Freedom is secondary and ancillary to that.

I feel like I should be able to say whatever I want in my own country. Whether it's my political opinion, or a slur, anything should be fair game.

The only exception is when violence - especially against Americans - is endorsed or when people say they hate this country. It's okay to be critical, but things like kneeling is offensive to veterans like my uncle and is rude

Yup, liberals need to learn how to grow a thicker skin

My skin is thick. I'm not defending myself but brave soldiers who are being attacked by Marxists