Free Speech

[Thorvald of Lym]

Freedom of Speech: to express one's opinions without fear of punishment.
It defines Western democracy as a staple right to its citizens, but has a nasty habit of being abused quite often. Danish newspapers, Canada Post postal workers (or the church), and liberal media have all used 'Free Speech' as justifications for their actions (or lack thereof).

Obviously, a line must be drawn. The question is, where?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Why must a line be drawn?

 

[Trajan12]

We cant do that cause our genious founding fathers passed down a loophole of an amendment.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Any line that is drawn is inevitably one line to many.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Why must a line be drawn?

Because otherwise everybody will use Free Speech as an excuse for their actions, everyone will blame everyone else, and nobody will be right.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Because otherwise everybody will use Free Speech as an excuse for their actions, everyone will blame everyone else, and nobody will be right.

Well it IS an excuse for their actions, it's called natural rights. It is their fundamental right as human beings to act and sound like idiots.

The alternative is far worse.

 

[Irish Caesar]

When it presents a clear and present danger.

 

[plarq]

IF the majority fall prey of fascism and other fanatical ideologies, we're doomed whatever.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

When it presents a clear and present danger.

Danger to whom?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Danger to whom?

Well, upon further research, it appears that that is no longer the standard anyway; the current limit of free speech as defined by the Supreme Court is that speech is not protected if it creates imminent lawless action: the speaker has the intent to incite "lawless action," for example a riot, and the action is both imminent and likely.

Which is fair enough, as long as the laws of a nation are fair and the legislature is democratic.

 

[DBear]

Any line that is drawn is inevitably one line to many.

So you're in favor of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

So you're in favor of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

No, let's be realistic. I do think that American censorship is too strict though.

 

[Stylesjl]

When you directly advocate a crime or violence. I chose the third option even if i disagree with the part of "Insulting people" Insulting people is a right that should never be abridged

 

[QuoVadisNation]

It all depends on the country's laws! Sometimes they're interpreted differently, like how France prohibits denying that whole Amerian genocide deal.

Personally, I think freedom of speech is tied to freedom of expression. A person can say or do whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly do or advocate serious harm to another human being or group/nation. Does this honestly sound really that strict?

Example? Denying the Holocaust is fine. It's stupid, but it's fine.

 

[Mark1031]

Offending people is what free speech is all about. Racist, Nazi, whatever speech should be protected. A few exceptions like the shouting fire thing or revealing state secrets shoudl not be protected. However the individual who reveals the secret should not be protected as opposed to the journalist who reports it.

 

[malclave]

I did not have an option to select. I believe speech which harms others should not necessarily be protected, but the option which lists "harm" also lists "insults".

 

[CaptainF]

No lines.

Free Speech gives you the right to offend and be offended at the same time.

What could be better?

 

[Israelite9191]

I voted the "when it insults of harms others or their rights" option but realized a second later that I should have voted the "NEVER!!" option.

I have conflicting feelings on this topic. On the one hand, I feel open debate encourages democratic practice and is necessary for the overall betterment of humanity. On the other hand, anti-semitic and other racist, anti-redligious/denominational, homophobic, etc. media is extraordinarily dangerous and can easily threaten the righs of those who are the target of such sentiments. I suppose that, in the end, absolute freedom of speech is necessary, but idealy government would be able to justly restrict speech in the hope of protecting people (in particular minorities and oppressed majorities a la apartheid S. Africa).

 

[Mega Tsunami]

My signature was a comment made by a Judge here in the UK. It says it all for me.

Lord Justice Sedley: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not intend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”

.

 

[Phlegmak]

Freedom of speech doesn't exist. You can't stand in front of me and scream obscenities in my face for half an hour. You can't tell everyone around you that you intend to kill them. We only have partial freedom of speech.

I didn't vote in the poll because I don't like the options.