What Does Free Speech Mean (to you?)

expressing ones self to another will never infringe on the rights of others.

All those examples and then the image below.

Is this what you example list was about?

Normally I would agree with you but the wikipedia definition would have to say:
"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or government censorship, or government societal sanction (which makes no sense, government societal sanction lol)." - Wikipedia

That definition is saying that freedom of speech without fear of any retaliation whatsoever from any source. It's that societal sanction I mentioned earlier in the thread, it throws the whole thing off and takes emphasis away from the government and onto society. Again, weird definition IMO.

Well put.

@kewldude007 When you say this "a person's freedom ends when it infringes that of another." I just don't see how one could infringe on someone else's expression using an expression.

A political donation is an action. So, er, yeah. Never realized this was a thing.

Midwestern bakery not making gay couple a cake because religion.

1 Like

This is not an issue of freedom of speech. No one has a right to patron someone else's private business. Unless the government forced it into law somewhere or another as a knee-jerk reaction.

You won't be banned for speaking rhe truth. Mostly

1 Like

Just wait until the mods come around. I expect it will get flagged by at least 3 people.

I must say, that is a lovely post.

If later it's grayed out and hidden by the community that is exactly what's happened, 3 flags hide a post.

1 Like

I read it not long after you posted it. I took it to be examples of expressing free speech, detailed with evidence or not. You're not going to get banned for exampling free speech in a thread where i said that this thread "may involve beliefs or some philosophical or political influence" because they can heavily influence someones view on it.

I broadly agree, though I do think words can harm, but I think these are rare and specific circumstances. People who are mentally ill at the time can depending on condition be easily influenced by only someones words for example.

Look at the case recently where a young woman convinced their friend to kill themselves only using her words. ref

Words can harm, though I don't think that necessarily constitutes restricting your freedom to speak. I do think in some cases (in all really) you must be willing to take responsibility for what you say. In this case she pushed someone to suicide through her words and I think it was appropriate she was found guilty.

Then they can't use the roads. Fair and square then?

It's more nuanced than "private business" because any business open to the public is not fully private. We aren't talking clubs with private membership here.

But this is only half a freedom of expression question anyway.

"say anything out in public or on internet without having other people shit on me"

Depends on what you mean there. I believe people still have the right to criticize you on your beliefs but once it gets physical or starts impeding on your rights then yea thats where the line gets crossed.

I do have a personal story of a relative who said some rather colorful things to a group of black people, and ended up getting mugged for doing so. Now obviously it was in no way shape or form right to be beaten and have property stolen, but people do have to understand human nature. All I'm saying is just because you have the right to say what you want doesn't mean it will protect you from societies reactions.

The dowside, for you, are that roads are public. Meaning, anyone can use them. So, that won't work.

In what way? If you're going to use the argument of public goods like roads then don't bother. If I start a business, a sole proprietor ship to keep everything very basic, is that business not wholly mine in every way?

well put.

I'm with you...

Still with you...

Gahh I'm lost. Words can't impend on rights! People can through actions however...

From the story

Ms. Carter told him over the phone to get back in the cab [that was filled with toxic fumes -fruitbrute] and then listened to him die without trying to help him....

That command, and Ms. Carter’s failure to help, said Judge Lawrence Moniz of Bristol County Juvenile Court, made her guilty of involuntary manslaughter...

left two families destroyed and raised questions about the scope of legal responsibility....

This is silliness. It's clickbait in the highest form. Yes, someone was quoted in the article as saying this case shows words can kill people, but the fact is that the fumes killed the man not the words and the man made the decision to listen to the woman. He could have just as easily walked away from his death had he not listened to them. As sad as that story is, it's his fault he died in that car because he decided not to think for himself in the very end.

EDIT: I can't say the story is clickbait...but it's not an article I would have clicked on. Got a bit heated when I read that someone killed themselves because someone told them to do it lol

I made my wording of this type of incident clear. Your basis is of a sane person. Any sane person would not stay in that car. What she did was plan and help a mentally ill person kill themselves, then when that person was having second thoughts pushed them to do it.

I have no remark on the specifics of law. While you might not call this murder (and i might agree), she could have easily stopped this and instead pushed them to do it knowing they weren't of sane mind.

Words are extremely powerful, especially on a broken mind. There's argument to be made also in this case (which i think they did argue) that there was also inaction. She planned and pushed this person to do this, but she also did nothing to stop them.

That's why I think its not just as simple as having the right to say whatever you want, there's also a huge responsibility to own and stand by and accept the consequences of your words.

(to clarify, it was the first article i found. Id read about the case a while ago, so im unfamiliar with the agenda of the nytimes)

2 Likes

Well there is probably exception to everything. But I think we should be responsible for the things we say only if it has serious consequences like someone committing suicide.

I think we all know that by now.

1 Like

That's more or less what I mean (little vague on my end)

1 Like

I don't really have an answer for this question that I think I have fully formed.

One of the reasons I thought to ask was because I had been considering just what exactly it means, at least to me.

I have a few thoughts on it so far.

Fundamentally I think free speech should not be restricted. I would say that free speech should not be restricted by law more specifically.

And to clarify I would regard free speech to be the ability to speak and articulate thought in a communicative form.

I wouldn't consider artistic expressing under the same meaning. Though I think artistic expressions holds almost an identical value and meaning. So although I think they are almost identical (and maybe I am wrong in separating them?) I think there is a slight though not great difference between expression of thought and expression of art. My thought being that society sets boundaries on what would be considered morally wrong in artistic expression but would not be wrong to discuss in factual expression of thought.

I may need to think of that more because I may not be right in considering them separate forms of expression, but i think there's something there, society puts more restriction on artistic expression (and in some ways freedom) than it does expressing thought.

So I do think we have the right to express our thought, no matter what that thought is, without legal repercussion.

But I do think there is more to it than simply the ability to speak.

I think though you should be allowed to express your thought, you must be responsible for your thoughts and how you express them.

I also think that free speech may not be the right direction to aim for.

Part of the reason I thought about this thread apart from it being to make people (and myself) think about the concept of free speech was from a recent video that Jordan Peterson was speaking in here.

He brought up the thought to speak the truth as best as you are able to.

I think this has some merit. I think while free speech is essentially a fundamental right, maybe even more so than just a fundamental right. I think there's a responsibility to the use of it. To speak the truth I think could go hand in hand with free speech, and I think its something we no longer ingrain and promote in society as much as we used to. That is, to use your right to free speech responsibly with with truth.

Many people go around using 'free speech' as an excuse in an attempt to harm and disrupt people in various ways, and I think in most cases you could probably make the case that free speech alone was not the cause of harm or disruption, but actually free speech in collusion with some other action.

So my thought has been recently that maybe free speech in the positive light also doesn't stand alone but stands with other concepts. Free speech is powerful when speaking the truth to the best of your ability, it can after all counter the use of free speech when used with lies and deceit. It's powerful when using it with positive action. etc.

Hopefully that makes sense. These have been some of my thoughts so far.

4 Likes

In America, rights are viewed as being something we have because we are human and not granted by any government. The bill of rights was an attempt to codify basic human rights in a way to say what the government is not allowed to do that would infringe on those rights.

In the case of free speech, there is also generally recognized right to a freedom of association and freedom of property that goes along with it. After all, what good is speech if it is relegated to a prison cell or a "free speech zone"?

That said, no right is completely unlimited. The right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. And causing a panic in public using speech are generally considered exceptions.

In America, we should be free to say whatever we want but we are not guaranteed an audience and we are not protected by the government from the public consequences of such speech (as long as those consequences aren't in themselves violence or otherwise illegal).

Likewise, a strict reading of the constitution, the government shouldn't be able to impose consequences for said speech or association with groups, especially religions, but it does, and frequently.

Unfortunately, human rights, although not granted by the government, are only as good as the people who are willing to protect them from the actions of government. And I'm sad to say American's have done a poor job of that.

Once exceptions are made to a simple ideology, such as free speech, exceptions are made to reduce them. This has been happening for a long time, hence my hardline stance.

What that woman did is despicable, don't get me wrong but her words did not literally kill him.

I agree. Mentally ill or not (the woman has some issues too such as an eating disorder they mentioned in the article among other things) when given the right to free speech, the people around you will be your judge and jury. They will make their own opinions on your character. No need for the government to step in and start creating yet another precedent which can be used to cripple that right.

EDIT:
So i guess to keep things on the straight and narrow, free speech is exactly as it states. IMO tm.

It is a difficult one I think. I understand the hard stance because I do agree it gets extremely difficult to know exactly what would constitute a crime or not. I don't know if we have come to a good or proper solution or understanding yet of those types of actions.

If you start a stampede by shouting 'fire' and 10 people die are you responsible?
If you shoot a gun in the air and cause a stampede and 10 people die are you responsible?

Both are quite similar. No action of physical harm was made by you, no death was caused by your hands. But people died because of an action you took.

If I found a person on a bridge who was thinking of jumping off, knowing there not stable, and pushed them to do it, convincing them it would be OK because i wanted to see them die. Is that OK?

In some of these cases where a persons mental health has deteriorated you can make them jump every time just by telling them to just as much as you can stop them jumping just by telling them not to.

I think the reason for the action you take is crucial. Pushing someone to kill themselves can be just as deadly as killing them yourself if you break there mental state.

I've no solution for that kind of problem, only that I don't think its as simple as you can say whatever you want without consequence regardless of what happens to a person because of your words to them.

I think its important to note that every person has complete freedom initially. And something like a constitution protects or revokes those freedoms, it does not grant them.

This is reminiscent of telling 10 people to jump off a bridge. The person or people stomping on another human being are the ones responsible. Each individual still needs to be aware of their own actions.

And unwarranted discharging of a firearm in public is against the law. Peoples reactions should be their own responsibility.

1 Like

Freedom to speak is not the same as freedom of speech. Free does not imply limitation or restriction.

Jordan B. Peterson has a funky definition of "Truth" with a capital T. It is a religious view, and thus has the usual equivocation fallacy built-in.

I would caution against reading too much into how he approaches topics since every sentence has to be examined for a landmine. x_x That said, he does end up in the right place with his high-level topics... somehow and his views on free speech are lucid...somehow. Sam Harris did two podcasts with him if you are interested, one on fundamentals, and another on resultant topics.

In terms of freedoms in general, Sarah Haider is a breath of fresh air. I am 100% with her on the fundamentals. She mostly focuses on the freedoms of heretics but her views on free speech were the same ones I arrived at a long time ago. From her twitter feed:

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

And from the article quoting Samuel Alito:

Yep. Freedom of speech is necessarily the freedom to offend because speaking out against injustice necessarily offends those who would prefer the status quo.

It allows people to garner support for their ideas based on the quality of their arguments and evidence, eventually transforming society for the better. An infringement of expression, however crude, is a crime against all because it shrinks the pool of available ideas in the public domain.

2 Likes