I’d rather not gravedig a 2004 topic. But it’s a good conversation topic.
@Mithrandir I’d really like to ask you what freedom of speech means to you. There seems to be significant debate between what freedom of speech actually entails. So… I’d like to hear your opinion.
I know this is directed at another user. Personally I think it should cover freedom to express, criticize, and engage in public discourse. I think it should cover nearly every aspect of speech and expression with limits being placed in cases that cause bodily harm or malicious harm to reputation (specifically through intentionally false statements).
Examples of things that shouldn’t be considered free speech: making threats of injury, harm or explicitly inciting others to do so. This would include threats of stalking or exposing of private information (but not information that is already public)
Slander: using false statements to damage reputation, false allegations of criminal activity with the express intent of causing loss in money (should have a high burden of proof )
Making statements that incite others to violence (should be explicit or clearly malicious in nature) such as telling fire in a crowded place. Implying others should attack others in illegal ways.
I’m sure there should be other limits but so far these are what I’ve come up with on the top of my head.
Things that shouldn’t be infringed: expression which includes insults or challenges to credibility based on matters of opinion. Artistic expressions not intended as news or fact (like jokes made on stage, farces, or satire). Expression of religion, and challenges to commonly held beliefs. Things that are considered controversial should be openly and freely discussed. Bad ideas should be remedied solely through good ideas rather than through violence, fines, or imprisonment.
Yeah, this is pretty much my view.
An area why I think I differ with the OP is that I believe that rights are universally applied to all humans simply by the fact that they exist. Government can (and should) protect those rights, but they never create them. Freedom of speech is a right in this formulation of the term. The right to not be offended is not only not an actual right, but it is a fundamental attack on the right of freedoms of speech.
Basically anything that is not a threat or fighting words. Anything that isn’t an intentional lie meant to damage someone or their business.
I’m not an absolutist but I’m pretty close. I would put insults or even racist remarks be protected by free speech. I don’t believe in hate speech, not as a crime at least unless it’s a threat like “I’m going to gas you Jews”.
Nothing good comes from pushing people underground so they can play the victim narrative for their cause. Put it front and forward for all to see and criticize.
I tend to think that natural rights exist only in the context of an implied social contract between individuals (or within communities). They should be accorded by default, but if someone chooses to violate my rights, they shouldn’t expect me to give theirs any consideration in return.
As a general matter, I agree…but only insomuch as we are talking about rights in my formulation above.
I think we are – natural rights as opposed to legal rights.
Something that came up in the Temp thread that inspired this thread:
It’s not the same as hate speech and not the same as defamation either.
Something else that people rarely think of now in most countries, even though it still exists in some:
Anyway, as you can see from the insult map,
Also:
Insult is reserved to countries of civil law but a similar behavior in public can be considered public disorder in common law, especially in that of the United Kingdom[7] and former colonies of the British Empire after 1776.[8] The difference is that in civil law there is a personal target and the damaged legal good is their honor but in common law the public is targeted and the damaged legal good is the public order. The unlikeness persists also in public insults of civil law.
If it’s true and does not attack someone personally then it seems pretty intact. Therefore , if say a Cram school or other service or person does something that you feel should be made public then you may do that. Providing that you have proof.
I think it’s got to a state where people are too scared including public forums to allow freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is essential to have a well functioning society.
(source)
'The first sentence of Article 310, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code provides “A person who can prove the truth of the defamatory fact shall not be punished for the offense of defamation unless the fact concerns private life and is of no public concern .” It means that the perpetrator who originates or circulates a …"
May I add that all child educational institutes are of public concern. Ditto.
I think free speech in taiwan means that I am allowed to go ahead and say that I won’t play along with saying taiwan has free speech. is that right?
But, I do wonder why the law isn’t used more than it is.
Purely hypothetical here;
For example, if one employee at a company regulary and publicly berates another employee at a company, will the insulted employee ever file a complaint?
I haven’t heard of it happening, but I have always wondered about it.
Obviously the insulted employee would lose their job for filing a complaint on their boss, but that would be the extent of the retaliation, wouldn’t it?
Probably that would be the interpretation whether it’s public or private, as per above info.
I have been told a few times by various government agencies that making private recordings and/or info public was a nono. These were more of personal nature, person to person, which fits the bill of quoted law above. They were quite clear it was OK in private and as proof (ie for lawyers, courts, agencies, investigations etc), but posting things online, media etc is not ok.
Also note, winning in court isn’t always winning in life. Worth a consideration. Having the legal system on your side doesn’t protect you. Always have proof. And by that, real proof. I wonder how long before audio recordings will not be enough. Then video. The fake stuff is getting convincing fast. The real issues will be: How to prove.
The genius of free speech is that the truth will always prevail over lies on a level playing field. That’s why the first thing evil people pushing lies do is to impose censorship. That’s also why truth doesn’t need nor want censorship. It knows that the best way to vanquish a lie is to coax it out from under its rock into the sunlight so it can be seen clearly for what it is.
Yeah, but it’s important to recognise that the level playing field you talk about does not exist in any society and never has. As long as inequality, privately owned media, etc exist then the scales of justice and truth will always swing in favour of the wealthy.
I’d like to add to the thread that freedom of speech includes neither the right to a platform nor the right to be heard. You can say what you want as you wander down the street, but nobody has to give you a loudhailer to amplify your musings, and the people you pass are free to completely ignore you.
More pertinent to modern discussion of the topic, if you are on a private platform such as Xitter, FB, whatever, and you break their terms of service and are banned due to using certain forms of speech, that is not a free speech issue. Neither is it a free speech issue if a student populace says they do not want a certain scheduled speaker on their campus and said speaker’s invitation is revoked.
If public property and/or the government are involved, then there’s a case to be made. But most of the time people talk about denial of free speech, ‘cancel culture’ and so on, they’re actually talking about people willfully ignoring the rules of private institutions and vocally disliking the consequences.
A good Taiwanese friend had this issue recently with one of her subordinates, who’d apparently been generally disrespectful and unwilling when asked to do stuff and one particular night sent her a load of “bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch […]” messages over Facebook then unsent them and later claimed they were intended for someone else (my friend took screenshots).
The company’s response was that they needed the staff and didn’t want to fire her, but to take it further my friend would need to see a doctor to confirm that she’d been mentally harmed by this, which seemed really bizarre, especially given that there was evidence of the behavior.
My friend saw a couple of lawyers about it (at her own expense), but in the end the subordinate resigned without incident after briefly transferring to another team.
Would it be a censorship issue if wealthy donors told university administrators they didn’t want certain points of view expressed on campus and administrators complied by expelling any students who expressed those views?
Absolutely! But just common sense. Amazing how much people actually care about social media, but they do. It is more than just a little bit retarded they mix up private websites and government regulation. But they do.
An example of freedom of speech issues here might be how foreigners, at least in the very recent past, weren’t allowed to participate in various forms of protest, volunteer etc. They got away with tax, national security and other bullshit excuses to mute peoples voices. it was quite discriminatory on actual freedom of speech, despite their efforts to paint those actions as a different “offence”. Taiwan has loads of examples. For better or worse, Taiwan has changed a lot. To the point we even allow and tolerate straight up foreign enemy allowing to spew propaganda all over the place to degrade our country. Despite how much they want us to be China, they are allowed to do that shit for the exact reason this country does allow at least fairly decent freedom of speech. The irony is just the opposite, wouldn’t work if they got their way and said anything against the party in power 
People really are fascinating creatures.
Yes, but censorship is not the same thing as suppression of freedom of speech (unless the censor is the government). It’s important not to blur the lines between those two concepts.
Meh, most of them are pot lickers.
Government censorship is suppression of legally protected speech. University censorship is suppression of speech. It’s important to realize that the difference is only legalistic. Both are motivated by the desire to create a hothouse environment for lies that would wither in a free marketplace of ideas.
American society is very legalistic. They can circumvent any free exchange of ideas or views without violating the constitution. Corporations for example are not subject to the constitution. At will employment means you can be terminated for any of no reason at all. Landlords can evict you if your views do not match theirs, it’s their property, so if they love trump and you are putting Biden election signs on a rented house, they can evict you if the contract states that you can’t carry out political activity.
This is also besides the fact that congress knows how to bypass the constitution.
Free exchange of views is already dead in the US. You can be canceled if you say something wrong.
