I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech includes ideas I vehemently disagree with (even hate speech). However, when speech incites physical violence and can be viewed as a legitimate threat, then it needs to be shut down.
Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free speech should be censored.
My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Absence of government censorship is only a small part of it. It was good enough long ago, when governments were the only powerful groups that could scare you into silence, but today it's no longer enough.
I think people should have the absolute right to free speech so long as it doesn't harm another person, but in the same token, with free-speech, comes the ability for others to amplify that speech. Good, bad, agreeable, or not.
Censorship is too easy for others to use as a club against persons they disagree with. Let the sunlight of public scrutiny be the judge.
I disagree with these sort of bans on speech as well, and it has never been because I naively believe that the speech is harmless. It is because I believe that granting the government the authority to pick and choose which speech is harmful is far more dangerous, and prone to abuse. It is because I think it is beneficial for reasonable members of the public to be able to see what garbage the other side is being indoctrinated with. It is because I believe that the portion of the public who is mostly likely to believe the harmful speech will see the censorship as more proof that they should. Most importantly it is because I believe that sheltering people from harmful ideas might protect them in the short term, but won't prepare them to deal with the seductiveness of harmful ideas that sound right when they do slip through.
I think free speech ends at specific threats or calls to violence. Call me the n word all you want. But if you threaten my life you should be stopped. Either by the police or by me.
I think free speech is necessary, but not free speech to harass or threaten violence. Free speech including the vile and negative won't make the world a better place. Arguing against the bad ideas will. But I do not think it's the burden of society to court speech that falls in the category or harassment or threats of violence.
I've thought about this quite a bit recently and have come to the conclusion that free speech, broadly speaking, is way more than a constitutional amendment protecting us from government persecution. That's a last resort protection.
Free speech is an ethic, an ideology, a deep part of our culture as Americans and essential to western enlightenment. It's a human right.
You don't have to agree with someone to think it's wrong to censor them. Corollary, you don't take away someone's human rights because they have an opinion you think is reprehensible.
History has a pretty damning record of what happens when societies allow silencing of undesirable voices.
Free speech comes with downsides just like every other thing. The alternative is to censor some things and allow other things, which work fine until more and more things gets banned, sometimes out of good intention. I’m totally onboard with banning hate speech and so on, but we need a very hard line of freedom somewhere that no bans get to cross, to me, this crosses it
Of course, what we're really saying here is that we can censor people we don't like. Free speech is conditional on you only saying things that no one minds you saying anyway...
As a free-speech absolutist, I got no problem with this. Unless the speech is threatening the direct physical harm of someone, or violating a law, it should be allowed.
At the same time, everyone else should have the tools to filter, block, and mute speech they do not like. If a tweet or a social media post has a certain word or phrase in it that I don’t like, I should be able to mute that and never see it.
Social media really has become something of a scourge on society.
Free speech isn't a universal concept in the world. Would you be OK with extremist organizations having their own channel on cable? Twenty four hours a day of hate speech, and recruiting your children to join them. Of course you wouldn't. Free speech ends when you're using it to harm others as far as I'm concerned.
At what point does free-speech become not free when it’s continually shut down? We’ve always talked about that you have the freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. Yet things are progressing much further beyond that, to a point where not just that someone disagrees with what you were saying, but they are going to shut down the ability for you to even speak to others about those things. Is there a line we can draw?
What if your cell phone provider or Apple interjects into your text messages to censor what you’re saying? Already you can’t speak your mind on any social platform without censorship, is the only thing left to do to stand on a street corner with a sandwich board handing out flyers? And even then, who says the government will not try to shut you down? Is that the line that we can’t cross?
We may not agree with what someone has to say, but it is absolutely shameful to try to silence someone just because we don’t agree with them.
Instead of Violating Everyone's Inalienable Rights to Free Speech and the First Amendment, Tell People That All They Have to Do Is to Not Listen
Freedom of speech is one of the most important inalienable rights that we have. It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." This means that the government cannot censor or punish us for expressing our views, even if those views are unpopular or offensive.
There are many good reasons to protect freedom of speech. For one, it is essential for a healthy democracy. When people are free to express their views, we can have open and honest debates about important issues. This helps us to make informed decisions about our government and our society.
Freedom of speech is also important for individual self-expression and development. We all have unique thoughts and experiences, and we should be free to share them with others. This helps us to connect with other people, to build relationships, and to grow as individuals.
Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are some types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as incitement to violence or child pornography. However, the Supreme Court has held that even hateful and offensive speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.
This may be frustrating for people who are offended by hate speech. However, it is important to remember that freedom of speech is not just about protecting the speech that we like. It is also about protecting the speech that we dislike. If we start censoring speech because we find it offensive, then we are on a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? What kind of speech is offensive enough to be censored?
Instead of trying to violate everyone's inalienable rights to free speech, we should tell people that all they have to do is to not listen. If someone is saying something hateful or offensive, we can simply walk away or change the channel. We can also engage in respectful dialogue with the person, if we feel comfortable doing so.
It is important to remember that the best way to counter bad speech is with good speech. When we express our own views openly and honestly, we can help to create a more tolerant and inclusive society.
Here are some specific examples of how we can tell people to not listen instead of trying to violate their freedom of speech:
If you see someone posting offensive content on social media, you can unfollow them or mute them.
If you are in a conversation with someone who is saying hateful things, you can politely change the subject or walk away.
If you are attending a public event where a speaker is saying things that you find offensive, you can leave the event.
You can also support organizations that are working to promote free speech and tolerance.
By telling people to not listen instead of trying to violate their freedom of speech, we can protect our own rights and create a more tolerant and inclusive society.
If you believe in some kind of censorship, that's great, we probably agree on a lot. You just can't take that position and believe in freedom of speech. If you believe in freedom of speech you object to the content of speech you find objectionable, not the right to say it.
As a proponent of free speech, I strongly believe that people should be able to express their opinions without fear of censorship or retribution. However, I also think it's important to recognise that there are limits to free speech, and that moderation is necessary in order to protect the rights and safety of others.
For example, it's one thing to express a controversial or unpopular opinion, but it's quite another to engage in hate speech, incite violence, post SPAM, excessive use of straw-man arguments, countering scientific consensus with harmful conspiracy theories, et al. In these cases, allowing such speech to go unchecked can have harmful consequences, and it's important for society to have mechanisms in place to address these issues.
Free speech is important to balance a strong democracy but its not an absolute right. Moderation in free speech is necessary in order to balance the rights of individuals to express themselves with the need to protect the rights and safety of others. Without moderation, the right to free speech can become a license to cause harm and to silence the voices of others.
That misses an important point IMO. The idea of Freedom of Speech is what's important, and that idea is not "the literal first amendment and absolutely nothing else". Arranging for harm to come to someone for expressing points of views you don't like is antithetical to the idea of Freedom of Speech. What we're supposed to be protecting is everyone expressing any views they hold, and for bad or wrong views to be dealt with in the marketplace of ideas, not by silencing the owners of those views.
You can perhaps say there are exceptions to views to be tolerated, but we're letting those exceptions become bigger and bigger. It's a dangerous trend, and if it continues, the idea of Freedom of Speech could be gone, even if the Government doesn't explicitly suppress it.
I think a distinction should be made between restrictions (on speech) by government, and restrictions by private entities. The former is dangerous, the latter is necessary.
Societal attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. I believe this is related to technological advancement and the rise of social media. The advent of social media has made it too easy to spread dangerous levels of hate and false information online. Malicious individuals and groups now have the power to reach hundreds of millions instantly, at no cost to themselves. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to YouTube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, adversarial nations were spreading fake news to influence who gets elected, and others were even live-streaming mass murders. This has caused an upheaval in attitudes towards free speech. Enough is enough! There needs to be limits. Communities started imposing limits to free speech. Society — as opposed to governments — have decided that some censorship is in order. This is a natural evolution of societal norms. This particular evolution was a reaction to the excesses and abuses seen in social media. Some censorship, by private parties such as Twitter, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal.
We live in a new world; the old norms no longer apply.
Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free speech should be censored.
reply