Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Simple really, do you believe in it, how far should it extend?

I think any political belief should be allowed to be said.

I think direct insults or threats should be censored or banned.

I ask because I saw something a couple of weeks back which suggested that younger people (in the UK I think) were more likely to accept restrictions on what you can say than older people.

Ban all direct insults, are you serious?

For one, how does that change anything? For two, how on earth do you define "direct insult"? For three, congratulations you just made backstabbing and lying the norm as opposed to honesty.

I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.

Computron wrote:
Simple really, do you believe in it, how far should it extend?

To infinity and beyond. Even the most hateful, ignorant, stupid, repugnant speech should be protected. You should have the right to say all the most reprehensible things you can come up with: and everyone else should have the right to tell that person what an idiot they are however they see fit.

The one limit to this that i can think of is incendiary speech intended to cause immediate and specific panic or harm (like yelling "bomb!" on an airplane, or "fire!" in a theatre, etc). I frankly don't even think hate speech or fighting words should be a thing.

I think any political belief should be allowed to be said.

Without question.

I think direct insults or threats should be censored or banned.

Slippery slope. What if direct insults toward the government are political beliefs, but the government says those beliefs are direct threats to it ? As my favorite law professor said when he asked our Legal Theory class if we agreed that it would be a good idea if Sodium Pentothol should be used on people during criminal questioning if we could be shown evidence (note, not prove - shown evidence!) that wrongful convictions would be greatly reduced or eliminated as a result: when most of the class agreed, framed in that lens, his response was "Do not so easily be led into fascism."

I ask because I saw something a couple of weeks back which suggested that younger people (in the UK I think) were more likely to accept restrictions on what you can say than older people.

Interesting. Is this something you could link to ? I'd love to read it if so. I would almost assume it would be the opposite in the US... at least i know GEN X (my gen) are super duper 1st amendment sensitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.

Again, i return to the person yelling BOMB on a plane, or FIRE in a crowded theatre. Should that be protected speech ?

I don't think so. But its just about one of the only exceptions i can think of.

Computron wrote:
Simple really, do you believe in it, how far should it extend?

I think any political belief should be allowed to be said.

I think direct insults or threats should be censored or banned.

I ask because I saw something a couple of weeks back which suggested that younger people (in the UK I think) were more likely to accept restrictions on what you can say than older people.

Pretty much agree with you.

threats shouldn't be allowed, nor should slander (although I have no issues with insults).

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.

Agreed.

I would back the right of any person to say even the most vile of things against what and whom I hold dear.

Edit; Though I'll concede that yelling bomb or fire is a gray area

Free speech for all who support free speech and against all who oppose free speech.

Keep in mind, however, that free speech doesn't mean you can do everything without being persecuted by the law. Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want.

Well, I think that would fall under other laws, like maybe attempt to cause a panic? Is that a law? Something like that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Free speech for all who support free speech and against all who oppose free speech.

Keep in mind, however, that free speech doesn't mean you can do everything without being persecuted by the law. Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want.

So free speech only if you agree with it?

There should be no restrictions on speech whatsoever. If someone wants to make a political, religious or social statement, they should be allowed. If someone wishes to offend someone else, they should be allowed to, with the natural condition that they should have to stand by the consequences of that (for example, if someone says something offensive to a certain race, they should not complain when they are branded a racist arse). Threats are an outlier as the consequences of them (both for the speaker and the target) are more severe, but then it becomes a matter of danger rather than one of offence.

On the note of being offensive or offended, I still stand by the above. You should be able to speak your belief, no matter what they are, and if they offend someone else, then so be it. Better to be offensive and honest about it than sycophantic and two-faced, if you ask me.


Of course, none of this extends to those who talk at the theatre. They should be banned entirely...

Freedom of speech is totally inalienable, and whether you believe you have that right or not, you do.

I can say whatever I like, whatever words I choose to use are mine and mine alone. No one can silence you, no matter what they might say. Even if someone has a gun to your head they still can't take away your right to speak your mind.

How can we, as humans, have any rights at all, or expect that any of our rights are protected, if we cannot accept the stone cold fact of free speech? How are gays supposed to get married if they are fooled into thinking they can't say whatever they want? How are women supposed to gain equality if they cannot speak freely?

I could go on. Truly the freedom to speak as you wish is the cornerstone of all human rights. How can freedom be possible, even in the slightest if our words are manacled by civility, political correctness and social conditioning?

Granted, if you call a person a bad name you probably ought to be ready to get punched...

Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think. It's about how your government can't stop you from speaking, or close down media they don't like. You know, like Russia where the bureaucracy always seems to come down heavily on newspapers that say anything Putin doesn't like.

It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

So free speech only if you agree with it?

Point me to where I said so?

Sorry to derail, but I think this ties in sort of...

How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?

Obviously we aren't gonna murder anyone, or use violence unnecessarily, but in the context I think violence is just fine. I fully expect that if I offend someone, there could be a fight. I also expect that if someone wants to be a jerk to me, then they too ought to prepare for violence.

I just don't want anyone thinking I'm some brute who knocks people out, cuz that is definitely not me! I just think that in certain circumstances, you need to wear your knuckles on someone else's face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think. It's about how your government can't stop you from speaking, or close down media they don't like. You know, like Russia where the bureaucracy always seems to come down heavily on newspapers that say anything Putin doesn't like.

It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.

No, it's not a license to troll people, because well, what I pointed out may happen. But the right is still there. You do have to stand up for what you say, I agree. Freedom of speech is inalienable, and so is responsibility.

Spetulhu wrote:

It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.

Of course not. Nothing can, except maybe being on a space station orbiting the Moon with a laser defence grid...

But I would say that those consequences should never delivered by a form of government. If I want to take to a town square and start proclaiming that I think our current government are all a bunch of fascists (just an example, not something I'm likely to do), they shouldn't be able to drag me away and lock me up somewhere.

A while back, the Home Secretary was calling for new legislation to clamp down on those 'inciting extremist views'. I can't recall if it got through or not, but I would love to have a chat with her over what precicely that definition covers. At the time, she was quite clearly talking about Islamic extremism (it was in the wake of a few UK residents joining ISIS), but I wonder, would it also cover someone talking about extreme socialism? Or autocracy? Or calling for a redistribution of wealth from the super-rich? All of these could pretty easily be classed as 'extremist views' should the Government need to shut someone up, which is why I was so appalled when it was suggested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

darkcloak wrote:
Sorry to derail, but I think this ties in sort of...

How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?

Obviously we aren't gonna murder anyone, or use violence unnecessarily, but in the context I think violence is just fine. I fully expect that if I offend someone, there could be a fight. I also expect that if someone wants to be a jerk to me, then they too ought to prepare for violence.

I just don't want anyone thinking I'm some brute who knocks people out, cuz that is definitely not me! I just think that in certain circumstances, you need to wear your knuckles on someone else's face.

I agree to some extent. I certainly believe one should be able to go to whatever length neccessary to defend themselves, their home or their family with no fear of prosecution, and at the same time, should be free to intervene should they see someone else in danger. I don't think it's right to throw the first punch unless you have been threatened and violence is inevitable, but you should be able to defend yourself without being branded as a perpetrator yourself.

Paradigm wrote:
Of course, none of this extends to those who talk at the theatre. They should be banned entirely...

Or at the Library! It's the Goddamn LIBRARY people!

Haight wrote:
Interesting. Is this something you could link to ? I'd love to read it if so. I would almost assume it would be the opposite in the US... at least i know GEN X (my gen) are super duper 1st amendment sensitive.

This really interests me too. I wonder how the millennials view this? Part of me thinks they (well I guess WE even though I'm 32) are used to a larger government influence than Gen X'ers while the other part of me is fairly certain that there is a growing Libertarian sentiment among them. I dunno. If I could get hold of a decent data set I could crunch the numbers. Otherwise it would be a good research topic.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

So free speech only if you agree with it?

Point me to where I said so?

that is pretty much what hate speech banning means.

With freedom to say what you like comes the responsibility to deal with the consequences of saying it.

 Paradigm wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.

Of course not. Nothing can, except maybe being on a space station orbiting the Moon with a laser defence grid...

But I would say that those consequences should never delivered by a form of government. If I want to take to a town square and start proclaiming that I think our current government are all a bunch of fascists (just an example, not something I'm likely to do), they shouldn't be able to drag me away and lock me up somewhere.

A while back, the Home Secretary was calling for new legislation to clamp down on those 'inciting extremist views'. I can't recall if it got through or not, but I would love to have a chat with her over what precicely that definition covers. At the time, she was quite clearly talking about Islamic extremism (it was in the wake of a few UK residents joining ISIS), but I wonder, would it also cover someone talking about extreme socialism? Or autocracy? Or calling for a redistribution of wealth from the super-rich? All of these could pretty easily be classed as 'extremist views' should the Government need to shut someone up, which is why I was so appalled when it was suggested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

darkcloak wrote:
Sorry to derail, but I think this ties in sort of...

How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?

Obviously we aren't gonna murder anyone, or use violence unnecessarily, but in the context I think violence is just fine. I fully expect that if I offend someone, there could be a fight. I also expect that if someone wants to be a jerk to me, then they too ought to prepare for violence.

I just don't want anyone thinking I'm some brute who knocks people out, cuz that is definitely not me! I just think that in certain circumstances, you need to wear your knuckles on someone else's face.

I agree to some extent. I certainly believe one should be able to go to whatever length neccessary to defend themselves, their home or their family with no fear of prosecution, and at the same time, should be free to intervene should they see someone else in danger. I don't think it's right to throw the first punch unless you have been threatened and violence is inevitable, but you should be able to defend yourself without being branded as a perpetrator yourself.

Oh good! I was worried no one would understand what I was trying to say. I'm definitely not the type to throw punches and I'd much rather resolve my problems calmly. But sometimes man.... Yikes! Don't ever trash talk a mans sister, or his mum! Whoo boy! Or his wife! Lol

That's about the extent of my capacity for violence. I just find it truly alarming that nowadays so many people are anti-violence and think they can change the world with a bowl of petunias. It's like I'm watching this long slow fall into complacency. I fear one day we will all be amorphous blobs on hover beds like in Wall-E

...

Hitting someone cause they said something you disliked maybe the stupidest thing I've heard, violence should only be used for defense on yourself or others. I guess in war too.

As a big fat loudmouth who talks a lot of chit, I have to vote for complete freedom of speech.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

So free speech only if you agree with it?

Point me to where I said so?

that is pretty much what hate speech banning means.

Point to the part about banning it. Banning and perscuting by instances of the law are two different things.

Only if anonymity is removed from the Internet. The worst abuses of free speech are not actions by citizens against the government, but by citizens against other citizens, who have no recourse.

Man, what is with people who hate anonymity on the internet and freedom of speech? It's so....soviet russian. Or something I expect N.Koreans to say

Free speech for everything.

No freedom from consequences though.

So if you shout "bomb" on a plane you're going to jail.

It's hard to think of potential restrictions that wouldn't result in a slippery slope

I'm going to be very impopular and say that:

a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.

b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.

c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.


To expand on c), I give you the following example:

Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?

There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.

To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:

Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.

I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.

darkcloak wrote:

How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?

Here's how I personally would "legalize" this: If person A says "you're a big weenie" and person B responds with "let's settle this in the parking lot", and person A obliges; AND there's no alcohol involved. As long as there's no permanent damage (scars, cuts, bruises and scrapes aren't permanent, and no claiming mental trauma here either.. you were a consenting party), that should be the end of it.

Seems like a great many dudes could use a good fisticuff to blow off some steam now and again



Anyhow... to the OP, the only "limit" that I can conceive, and even then, I'm very hesitant on it, is the "public safety" laws... no yelling fire in a theater, that sort of thing. I would kind of classify incitement under this category, because if you're a particular set of parents who live in a certain state in the middle part of the US, in a town relatively near a rather French soundting town; And you're yelling things like "F the police, let's burn this motha down!!!" and people "burn that motha down"... you just created a situation that is extremely hazardous to public safety, and you should be dealt with accordingly.

Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit:
How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?

Not a parent, but I'd imagine that "you're entitled to your erroneous opinion" would work as a response?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit:
How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?

Generally speaking, from my own personal, anecdotal experience, minors have "fewer rights" in many situations as compared to adults.

But, it still falls under the "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" banner.

Freedom of speech is necessary to a free society. Considering that, I'm perfectly happy with how the U.S. government currently handles it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit:
How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?

While I might not be a parent (I hope), I did use this once against my mother. Her response was something like this:

"Yes, honey, you do. I have the right to free speech, too. I also have the right to enroll you in a military academy. Would you like me to exercise that right?"

Scared the gak out of me. Admittedly, I was 6, but it did worked.