In recent days there has been much talk over “Free Speech”
I expect that people have very different ideas as to what Free Speech is.
This is not an attempt as may be seen by some to have a dig, but a genuine interest in finding out what people believe and even to some extent why they hold that belief.
To my way of thinking freedom to express ones feelings through speech, verbal or written, should come with limitations, but those limitations should be where the speech advocates treasonous activities, racism, breaking of the law etc.
Why do i think this way, primarily because i believe that is the best way, partly due to upbringing, partly due to seeing what can happen if such limitations do not exist. Any Brit of a certain age will remember only too well the race riots incited by the BNP.
My understanding is that TM and Fred as examples encourage and advocate 100% Free Speech. I take that to mean - maybe incorrectly - that anything is acceptable.
Whilst personally - if my brief definition is fairly accurate - i do not agree, i would like to know what the proponents would do with regard to people advocating breaches of law based on a 100% Freedom of Speech law.
To me free speech is exactly that - complete lack of censorship. Racism, sexism, hate, anything goes. The internet as a whole is a pretty good example. Forumosa has never had free speech in the way I’d define it, but IMO it serves the community better that way.
This post should not in any way be read as an opinon about the IP forum. To me that’s an argument about where to draw the line, not whether to draw it. I’m fairly confident even TMT would have had a problem with ‘Die, Whites/Blacks/Asians, Die!’.
Just 100% free speech for those that agree with me. It is part of my effort to remake myself as a new more tolerant Freddy Smith. I hope that you can appreciate that.
limitations, sure. But not as many as you seem to think.
This is the first on the list? Treason??? Wow!!! The first limitation of freedom of speech you can think of is to protect the state’s power? Unbelievable! No. I disagree. Treasonous statements should definitely be allowed.
Of course, racism is hateful, but how do you decide what is racist? Its not always easy. So long as the racist comment doesn’t deprive anyone of opportunity or other rights, is it as much of a problem?
If a low-end redneck employee makes racist comments about his rich black boss, is that as bad as if the black boss makes racist comments about the redneck janitor?
In general, the courst give recourse for damages - and what damages does the boss incur? What damages / limitations might the janitor incur?
This way of dealing with the problem is not a symmetrical proposition, but it seems a sensible way to deal with things.
What then would have happened to examples of civil disobedience and the civil rights movement!!!
No, again you are way off beam here.
Traveller, it is interesting to note how your seemingly sensible and uncontroversial limitations could quickly lead to a drastic curtailment of liberty.
The only limitations on free speech (and by that I am referring primarily to political speech) that I believe are valid are the time, place, and manner limitations and only those which are both reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
The time, place, and manner restrictions on free political speech are valid, IMO, if (1) the limitations are content neutral (i.e., they do not treat speech differently based on content); (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve an important community interest; and (3) they leave open ample alternative means of expression.
While I detest racists, I have no desire to curtail their ability to express their racist feelings and beliefs, provided the time, place and manner of such expression is considerate of the legitimate rights of others.
Does absolute free speech exist in the US? Could one say “I think America would be a better place if the president were shot in the face?” Could one say "Round up all the homos, commies, pinkos, spics, niggers, wops, chinks, dagos, and kikes and ship 'em over to Africa? Is there any difference between spoken expression and printed expression? Of course this would be the kiss of death commercially if any media allowed such comments, but would they be legally safe? No lawsuits or political harassment? I know in Canada that you can get in hot water over holocaust revisionism - I remember a big case in my hometown about 15 years ago…
What happened to my post? I came back here last night with a big thank you to some, an explanation re: “spamming” and lo! It’s gone. Not even floundered or flamed. Just gone. WHY? What was offensive? How did it break any rules? Posted in the wrong place maybe but it was addressed to IP browsers and that was the best place to put it. Why has it been deleted? I didn’t mention anyones real names, reveal any phone numbers, post an over-sized picture, insult anyone, repeat myself, use expletives etc. but my BroonAgain - Return From Exile post just vanished. Why? That’s not fair…someone explain to me why it was deleted and vanished into thin air, please.
In my mind, the best way to begin answering the question ‘What are the appropriate limits of free speech?’ is to ask ‘what was the essential meaning behind the enshrinment of freedom of speech in the first place?’.
What possible reason could there be for codifying Fred Smith’s right to bore, bait, bitch and bay incessantly to no apparent constructive end?
Surely there has to be better reason than he simply ‘has the right to do it’ and nobody can stop him.
The same reason that allowed you to make the above post, which asked a few questions, did a little bitching of its own, but failed to make a constructive point.
IYBF, i wrote the original as an opener, i dont mind having my views criticised, by why not add some of your own and make the contribution positive rather than just negative.
Where do you stand, what limitations should there be in your view point.
Inconsistency, double standards, selective criticism, lack of objective yardsticks, racist attacks against the United States, insulting attacks against the president of the United States, outrage on cue for peoples suffering greater oppression and therefore to be accorded greater sensitivity and rights, how’s about them? hmmm?