What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression?

[Taostic Aesthetics]

You see the thing with freedom in my opinion is that freedom implies you do not harm others. The NAP is a good measuring point.

Whistleblowing shouldn't be illegal.
Shouting bomb in a crowded place shouldn't be illegal either, but you should be liable for the consequences.


tl;dr Geert Wilders asked his public whether they wanted less or more morrocans - crowd reacted with less less less, whereupon he reacted with ''we'll take care of that''.

He got fined afaik and found guilty of inciting hatred - which in my opinion, did not happen.

So, you're saying there should be limits based on harm done to others. A freedom doesn't imply that you don't harm others, that's an external limit.

So, no criminal persecution, then, for someone who knowingly endangered the lives of others? Just because he used his voice?

What about causing a run on the banks?

I repeat - shouting ''bomb'' shouldn't be illegal in itself. He can be liable for the results.

I bet the banks can sue the hell out of such a person, so hence I assume someone will not be stupid enough to say something. If he does - he goes bankrupt.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, you're saying there should be limits based on harm done to others. A freedom doesn't imply that you don't harm others, that's an external limit.

So, no criminal persecution, then, for someone who knowingly endangered the lives of others? Just because he used his voice?

What about causing a run on the banks?

I repeat - shouting ''bomb'' shouldn't be illegal in itself. He can be liable for the results.

I bet the banks can sue the hell out of such a person, so hence I assume someone will not be stupid enough to say something. If he does - he goes bankrupt.

So, why make murder illegal, then?

[Taostic Aesthetics]

I repeat - shouting ''bomb'' shouldn't be illegal in itself. He can be liable for the results.

I bet the banks can sue the hell out of such a person, so hence I assume someone will not be stupid enough to say something. If he does - he goes bankrupt.

So, why make murder illegal, then?

Because it is a violation of the NAP.

[Kenmoria]

In my opinion the only limits on free speech should be in cases of slander/libel when the person involved knows that what they are saying is not true. This is because I hold the view that no opinion can be considered completely wrong. Whilst some opinions are not good for society the people who believe in them have a right to express them. However in the cases of slander/libel that fit the criteria above the person does not hold the opinion they are trying to express they merely wish to damage others' reputation.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, why make murder illegal, then?

Because it is a violation of the NAP.

The NAP? I take it you don't mean sea level?

[Taostic Aesthetics]

Because it is a violation of the NAP.

The NAP? I take it you don't mean sea level?

Non Agression Principle.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The NAP? I take it you don't mean sea level?

Non Agression Principle.

Shouting 'bomb' is also against this principle.

[The East Marches II]

You see the thing with freedom in my opinion is that freedom implies you do not harm others. The NAP is a good measuring point.

Whistleblowing shouldn't be illegal.
Shouting bomb in a crowded place shouldn't be illegal either, but you should be liable for the consequences.


tl;dr Geert Wilders asked his public whether they wanted less or more morrocans - crowd reacted with less less less, whereupon he reacted with ''we'll take care of that''.

He got fined afaik and found guilty of inciting hatred - which in my opinion, did not happen.

So, you're saying there should be limits based on harm done to others. A freedom doesn't imply that you don't harm others, that's an external limit.

So, no criminal persecution, then, for someone who knowingly endangered the lives of others? Just because he used his voice?

What about causing a run on the banks?

A run on the banks would be a free market punishment for the public's stupidity. :^)

[The East Marches II]

I think the American system is working just fine OP. Don't let us stop you lot from arresting people over bin man jokes.

[Soyouso]

IMO (though my idea of freedom is different from the norm), the limit should be plotting treason, inciting violence on [insert group or person] or some sort of crime, especially when they're trying to justify things like rape/pedophilia. All of what I listed is plotting to commit a criminal act that could hurt others, which shouldn't be accepted by a fascist society, especially one with cultural nationalism, because it would decrease the safety of the people and hold back progress. That includes hate crimes, all they do is divide countries that need unity. Plotting hate crime or discrimination = Hate speech.

[Dushan]

[Moved]

[Petrolheadia]

I think that incitement of violence/destruction of property and knowingly spreading falsehoods should be banned. Nothing else; if a belief you don't like gets banned, there is as much ground for banning the ones you like.

[Mike the Progressive]

Jerking off in front of a school.

Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?

No worries, I'm not a school teacher so I don't do that.

[Conserative Morality]

Incitement to violence or criminal activity is the only legal limit.

Now, societally speaking? I'm all for no-platforming shitstains like Neonazis and the sort.

[Major-Tom]

Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?

No worries, I'm not a school teacher so I don't do that.

Some school teachers are pretty fucked. Exhibit A.

[Omnonia]

Inciting hatred or violence, disturbing public peace and order, infringing on the dignity of other people (regardless of whether the statement is true or false), endangering the healthy development of minors.


Basically, I think modern Germany handles freedom of speech just about perfectly right.

[Proctopeo]

Definitely the American system, although we should shorten the length it takes something to enter public domain; at least repeal the CTEA.

[Nariterrr]

The right to free expression, speech, media, art, protest, petition, etc. are absolute except in cases where free speech:

1. is used to causes or can cause proven and undeniable physical and/or mental harm to a person.

• Calling on people to hurt or kill someoneis not free speech.
• Causing or calling on people to start or spread serious slander or libel against the character of a person without reason or just cause is not free speech.
• Depriving someone of their right to free speech is not free speech.

2. jeopardizes the security of the government, the people, or an institution who has the right to be protected.

• Releasing information that jeopardizes the lives of government employees or the security of vital government operations that may be responsible for people's lives, like unlawfully reporting on troop movements, is not free speech.
• Releasing information that you swore or signed a contract to keep secret (trade secrets, for example) is not free speech
• Whisteblowing can go either way:
  unless the whistleblower jeopardizes life or limb of a person or jeopardizes government/corporate secrets that will cause serious harm to that institution, it is ok.

3. is used by members of a military or militia specifically for the purpose of disrupting order or to cause distress or is used by a student in a school specifically to disrupt the learning environment of the students.

[Nexus of All Realities]

As long as one is not advocating/inciting/taking part in violence I'd say it's alright. Racists that are nonviolent and not advocating violence/ethnic cleansing but still are very bad people should be ridiculed/ignored but not shut down by the government. (I am American, probably have a wider view of free speech than Europeans as OP said)

I agree with you about half the way. "taking part in violence" is sometimes forced on you.

[Donut section]

There are no limits to freedom of expression. It's speech.

Only actions need be policed.

[Ethel mermania]

Incitement should be the line.

Kikes and nigoers are icky , should be OK
KILL the niggers and kikes should not be.

Libel and slander are different than free speech and should be enforceable with the provison that the truth is a defense against a libel suit.

[Nexus of All Realities]

Incitement to violence or criminal activity is the only legal limit.

Now, societally speaking? I'm all for no-platforming shitstains like Neonazis and the sort.

Which will only lead to them springing up and 'platforming' in brand new ways.

[Conserative Morality]

Which will only lead to them springing up and 'platforming' in brand new ways.

Tell me more about these brand new ways they've embraced, like holding rallies in parks and marching down streets with tiki torches.

[Nexus of All Realities]

Which will only lead to them springing up and 'platforming' in brand new ways.

Tell me more about these brand new ways they've embraced, like holding rallies in parks and marching down streets with tiki torches.

What is there to tell you?

[Mensirada Nysgceballada Ghebanea]

Violence, sedition, libel, slander, defamation (I forgot which of the last three is which), treason and insurrection and incitements thereof.