Is Free Speech good?

[Epluribus Unum]

Where did I say that? No Line unless you break the law! If thats your proverbial line then yes.

I mean, you are reading what you're writing, yes?

"No line" would mean no restrictions.
"No line unless you break the law" is meaningless, since we then could make a law banning, well, all speech and that would be within what you're saying.

You say 'A line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed (the law)'. That's something most people agree on. The main question in that case, however, is where you draw the line - that means, what the law is and should be.

So as I said, and you disagreed with: The question isn't if there should be some limits to freedom of expression, but where exactly to draw the line.

Ah the No True Scotsman Fallacy in play I see, The words were indeed free Speech its the intent of said speech that was illegal.

[Epluribus Unum]

Shrug.
Free Speech is good when used in a manner that contributes to the discussion in a meaningful way, elevating the discourse. It is not an end in itself, and may be necessarily restricted when the contributions of any particular group serve for opposite purposes.

I disagree, who is it to determine whats good and bad you? A special group of Freedom of Speech purveyors? NO! Opposition to anything is good!

[Minskiev]

Why is this a necessary debate? Obviously free speech is beneficial.

For your poll question, you need to edit the original post, go down to the bottom above the Disable BB code, and right next to Options it should say Poll Creation. The rest is self explanatory.

[Kowani]

Shrug.
Free Speech is good when used in a manner that contributes to the discussion in a meaningful way, elevating the discourse. It is not an end in itself, and may be necessarily restricted when the contributions of any particular group serve for opposite purposes.

I disagree, who is it to determine whats good and bad you? A special group of Freedom of Speech purveyors? NO! Opposition to anything is good!

This is a particularly shitty gotcha. No, the answer to your question is society at large, and occasionally a local group more versed in local cultural nuances.

Which is what already happens.

[Gravlen]

I mean, you are reading what you're writing, yes?

"No line" would mean no restrictions.
"No line unless you break the law" is meaningless, since we then could make a law banning, well, all speech and that would be within what you're saying.

You say 'A line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed (the law)'. That's something most people agree on. The main question in that case, however, is where you draw the line - that means, what the law is and should be.

So as I said, and you disagreed with: The question isn't if there should be some limits to freedom of expression, but where exactly to draw the line.

Ah the No True Scotsman Fallacy in play I see,

What? No. You seem confused as to what that is, so here's an article about it.

The words were indeed free Speech its the intent of said speech that was illegal.

But deciding what intent should be illegal is drawing a line, something which you disagreed with previously.

[-Astoria-]

Within reason, of course; you can't exactly achieve absolute peach.

Having policy that kids in school not use profanity is one thing, I am talking outside in public Free speech! If I want to swear i shall. Are you suggesting a premise in which I would be jailed, fined for swearing?

I think you've got the wrong post, mate; I'm not talking about schools, I'm talking about incitement to murder & such.

Within reason, of course; you can't exactly achieve absolute peach.

Do explain? I am Cuban, if someone was spouting off about Cubans, I would ignore them and be on my way! I wouldn't get all upset and uppity and expect legislation to be passed!

If you're going to quote me twice, there is no need for another post. Miami Shores, is that you?

Absolutely. Free Speech Is What Seperates Us From Authoritarian Leftish Politics Like Communism.

And now, drink!

[Nuroblav]

In the US the words "I'm going to kill the president" are illegal btw.

Ah yes, it also turns out that "you should kill the President" is not.

[Slavakino]

Say what ever you want. This "hate speech" garbage needs to stop, freedom to say what they want

[Liriena]

Yes, free speech is good. Hate speech is not free speech, though. If you use your free speech to say dumb shit, expect to be treated like a dumbshit by everyone else.

[Liriena]

Say what ever you want. This hate speech garbage needs to stop

The hate speech laws just got five pages longer

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Unequivocally. I believe in absolute free speech short of threatening violence, and I'm not even American. Anything less is a clear-cut infringement of basic civil liberties.

Bear hit the nail on the head:

Silence is violence but so is hate speech defined as I see fit.

Hate speech is anything that I personally disagree with or get offended by, and I wish to impose this on other people.

In topsy-turvy PC world, this example from 2018 would be defined by leftists and easily-offended Muslims as "Islamophobic hate speech" instead of, you know, standing up to an authoritarian Islamist regime in the Middle East that routinely dehumanizes women.

In topsy-turvy PC world, advocating HK independence, burning the Chinese flag, accusing the WHO of being Sinocentric, or referring to the Wuhan coronavirus by its place of origin are all forms of racist, Sinophobic "hate speech" instead of, you know, standing up to a totalitarian, Communist, fascist regime in the Far East that routinely dehumanizes Uighur Muslims.

Characterizing Malaysia as a racist country is now defamatory hate speech worthy of at least 10 years in prison rather than a call for the Malaysian government to be held accountable for its actions.

Championing men's rights is now "hate speech". Supporting Donald Trump or wearing a MAGA cap is now "violent hate speech". The specter of "hate speech" is a tool that authoritarians of both the far-right and far-left persuasions use to stifle legitimate dissent, consolidate their grip on power and is a form of social and political gaslighting.

SiLeNcE iS vIoLeNcE too apparently, so that makes it okay to physically assault introverted people in "self-defense" for failing to express certain, "correct" opinions such as kneeling before the altar of BLM/MeToo/the CCP/Islam.

[Slavakino]

Say what ever you want. This hate speech garbage needs to stop

The hate speech laws just got five pages longer

Convenient, I got a zippo lighter nearby

[-Astoria-]

In topsy-turvy PC world, this example from 2018 would be defined by leftists and easily-offended Muslims as "Islamophobic hate speech"

Good start; it does read like a "SJWs EaSiLy TrIgGeReD" screed.

[Nuroblav]

Unequivocally. I believe in absolute free speech short of threatening violence, and I'm not even American. Anything less is a clear-cut infringement of basic civil liberties.

Bear hit the nail on the head:

Silence is violence but so is hate speech defined as I see fit.

Hate speech is anything that I personally disagree with or get offended by, and I wish to impose this on other people.

In topsy-turvy PC world, this example from 2018 would be defined by leftists and easily-offended Muslims as "Islamophobic hate speech" instead of, you know, standing up to an authoritarian Islamist regime in the Middle East that routinely dehumanizes women.

In topsy-turvy PC world, advocating HK independence, burning the Chinese flag, accusing the WHO of being Sinocentric, or referring to the Wuhan coronavirus by its place of origin are all forms of racist, Sinophobic "hate speech" instead of, you know, standing up to a totalitarian, Communist, fascist regime in the Far East that routinely dehumanizes Uighur Muslims.

Characterizing Malaysia as a racist country is now defamatory hate speech worthy of at least 10 years in prison rather than a call for the Malaysian government to be held accountable for its actions.

Championing men's rights is now "hate speech". Supporting Donald Trump or wearing a MAGA cap is now "violent hate speech". The specter of "hate speech" is a tool that authoritarians of both the far-right and far-left persuasions use to stifle legitimate dissent, consolidate their grip on power and is a form of social and political gaslighting.

SiLeNcE iS vIoLeNcE too apparently, so that makes it okay to physically assault introverted people in "self-defense" for failing to express certain, "correct" opinions such as kneeling before the altar of BLM/MeToo/the CCP/Islam.

Pretty much this, especially given that I'm quite an introverted person

Quite a few people as you say are quick to silence anyone who disagrees with them, particularly the examples that you gave. I hate racism as much as the next guy, but not to the point where I want it banned - which would really be solving the problem.

That being said, I wouldn't put it to a set side on the political spectrum. Not all of us lefties are like that, same with the right-wing and centre. Personally I think this is a good time where the spectrum proves to be way too 1-dimensional.

[Northern Izmir]

I mean, most liberal governments seem to agree that it is in certain contexts, but there is no way to achieve absolute free speech. Maybe you can say/post something demeaning about your country or government in the street or internet and not face any consquences, but if you say/post something demeaning about the business you work for, expect to get fired. It is not even only about corporations or governments: if you are a member of any organisation and openly demean them, you can expect to face at least some consquences for it, mostly getting kicked out of that organisation, even though effects of those consequences would definitely be lighter than that of larger organisations. It simply is a fact of modern life.

What really is the difference between ''hate speech'' against governments and ''hate speech'' against corporations? Is it really that bad of a thing a State or a corporation would defend a certain minority or majority group against demeaning speech? After all, they are protecting the interests of potential members/investors? This is not a rhetorical question. I would love to hear answers and the reasons why.

Moreover, is free speech acceptable if it spreads inaccurate information and harms the general public? For example, anti-vaccination agenda led to the resurgence of measles in 2018 and 2019. I am asking this question because there has also been a resurgence of anti-vaccination agenda during the Coronavirus pandemic. I am also asking this because I do not know the answer. It seems that it is a slippery slope to apply this to everything as we do not know what is accurate and inaccurate in every field, but it seems that obviously unironic statements usually lead to actions as time goes by.

Either way, this is a very interesting thread it is good to hear different opinions.

[Mirjt]

Yes, free speech is good. I refer to Noam Chomsky and the ACLU on this matter. They are free speech absolutists, and while I sometime have difficulty with that position due to the existence of hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, and outright fabrications (all of which I want us as a culture to find ways to fight against), free speech absolutism is grounded in logic, liberty, reason, ethics, and human rights and I support the position.

P.S. inciting violence or danger, or revealing people private information, or engaging in libel is not free speech, it is an act of terror or harrassment.

P.S. whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden revealing U.S. secrets is free speech and should be protected as such.

[Brinckerhoff]

Free speech is a legal policy.
Non-legal institutions can impose whatever restrictions they want, its still free speech.
Free speech only gets violated when people start getting legal penalties for their opinions.

I agree, but would only add Free Speech is not a legal Policy. It is a Founding Principle an Inalienable right as a Citizen of the United States!

So is private property, of course. I find that the loudest shouters about free[dom] of speech these days are just butthurt about private-sector companies choosing what and how they publish on their own property. Surely, you agree that I have the right to determine what I buy and have on my shelf, yes?

[Outer Sparta]

Yeah free speech is good, but of course you cannot achieve absolute free speech and there has to be limits.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes free speech is good. Free speech is the cornerstone and bedrock of any free society.

[Volinovia]

You should be able to say anything and everything. Minus calls to violence. (I do not include hatespeech in said calls to violence.)

[Geneviev]

Free speech is not only good, it's absolutely necessary. But people also have the freedom to disagree with someone else's speech.

[-Astoria-]

Free speech is not only good, it's absolutely necessary. But people also have the freedom to disagree with someone else's speech.

As for businesses?

[The Black Forrest]

Free speech makes it easier to identify the morons.

[Minskiev]

Honestly at this point, if there’s a children’s book that doesn’t feature at least 2 minority groups, it’s hate speech. The word has lost a lot of its meaning.

[Necroghastia]

Honestly at this point, if there’s a children’s book that doesn’t feature at least 2 minority groups, it’s hate speech. The word has lost a lot of its meaning.

The only people I ever hear say things like that are the ones complaining about people supposedly saying that, but go off I guess.