Free Speech

[FireDragon76]

Malicious speech that is false has never been a recognized right and civil courts exist to impose fines to that end.

 

[hedrick]

Malicious speech that is false has never been a recognized right and civil courts exist to impose fines to that end.

But this is only a subset of harmful false speech. However I don't have a good way to go beyond that without causing problems.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

Free= unfettered. Censored speech is not free speech it is restricted speech. If one wants to restrict speech then one needs to admit it and say one is against free speech. Seems to me that if one says one is for free speech but wants speech restricted and punished if found false then one is engaging in spreading a falsehood and should punish oneself for so doing.

 

[Par5]

Yes.

The Primary problem with banning "Falsehood" is who gets to define "Falsehood"

Some areas where you would get the most complaints even from this site.
Is the Earth App 6000-10000 years old or 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Did Humans Arise via Evolution or Creationism?

Right there with just those two things you would have problems if you were to punish those telling "Falsehoods"

There would be no trouble there at all. There is ample proof that the world is more than 6000-10,000 years old.
Evolution is also a fact, but I don't expect anyone who believes the world is only 6000 years old to grasp that fact.
Facts are not falsehoods.

 

[John Helpher]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood?

Free speech was never meant to justify slander, libel, or hate. The spirit of "Free speech" was meant to be a protection against prosecution of speech against corruption and falseness. You are free to speak up if you see something false or corrupt.

To say that free speech should include any and all kind of speech without any thought or discretion or consideration is just foolishness.

 

[Kylie]

If some of the people who dominate the conservation surrounding gender on Twitter were in power, they could make stating biological facts (like women have XX chromosome) as falsehoods.

Well technically some don't.

XY gonadal dysgenesis - Wikipedia
Triple X syndrome - Wikipedia
Turner syndrome - Wikipedia
Tetrasomy X - Wikipedia

Also, being a woman is a matter of gender identity, which isn't always attached to the physical structures a person has in their lower body...

 

[Gene2memE]

Free speech has always had limitations - not just in the US, but in pretty much any country with a constitution. The idea that free speech is totally without limitations is some kind of weird libertarian fantasy, completely absent of a grounding in the realities of the history and the law of speech.

For instance, despite the First Amendment, some US states fined or jailed people for blasphemy at the tail end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th.

In 1811 the state of New York even found that blasphemy could only be committed against Christians, and that blasphemy couldn't occur when considering “the religion of Mahomet or the Grand Lama”. It wasn't until 1958 that state blasphemy laws were overruled by the US supreme court.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There would be no trouble there at all. There is ample proof that the world is more than 6000-10,000 years old.
Evolution is also a fact, but I don't expect anyone who believes the world is only 6000 years old to grasp that fact.
Facts are not falsehoods.

There is only ample proof if one actually believes the method used to acquire that ample proof is a valid one. If one is invested in one way of uncovering evidence based solely upon one's personal preferences then one will not be open to other means of exploring the truth. If one is open minded enough to question one's own ideas about what constitutes factual information one might be more willing to admit that every method of truth detection is based upon faith alone.

 

[grasping the after wind]

But this is only a subset of harmful false speech. However I don't have a good way to go beyond that without causing problems.

Of course you don't and neither does anyone else. What is more harmful speech that hurts someone's feelings or giving emotionally fragile people the power to censor the speech of others?

 

[John Helpher]

Free speech has always had limitations - not just in the US, but in pretty much any country with a constitution. The idea that free speech is totally without limitations is some kind of weird libertarian fantasy, completely absent of a grounding in the realities of the history and the law of speech.

Agreed, except I would not limit it to one particular political party/ideology (i.e. Libertarians). Rather, I would suggest the concept of speech without any consideration is a hypocritical concept designed to make one look good. Any human could be tempted by that.

"I think all speech should be unlimited because I'm an open-minded, free thinker who cares about freedom! Just, don't like about me, or insult me, or say anything which might hurt me, my friends, my family, or my income!"

What we need is wise speech. There is no reason to protect foolish, hateful, or slanderous speech. Most people would agree with this in theory but they become confused when it comes to discerning what is foolish speech and what is hateful speech and what is slanderous speech.

Because it takes real effort to understand the differences in these concepts it's easy to conclude that no one can really decide these issues so we should allow everything just in case we make a mistake along the way by censoring someone who really is right.

Mistakes will happen along the way, but that doesn't mean we should just give up. Wisdom and discernment takes practice.

 

[Par5]

There is only ample proof if one actually believes the method used to acquire that ample proof is a valid one. If one is invested in one way of uncovering evidence based solely upon one's personal preferences then one will not be open to other means of exploring the truth. If one is open minded enough to question one's own ideas about what constitutes factual information one might be more willing to admit that every method of truth detection is based upon faith alone.

What you said leads me to think that you believe simply having faith in something is proof. Belief in a god is faith-based, but there is nothing that can prove the existence of that god. Its existence is in the mind of the believer.
As for a personal preference for discovering truth, the scientific method works best.
When you travel somewhere in an aircraft do you think that it is faith that enables it to climb to 30,000 feet, travel for miles in the air, and finally land at your destination?
No, an aircraft can fly thanks to the scientific principles of aerodynamics and thrust. These principles are in operation thousands of times a day, every day, as aircraft crisscross the sky.
Science is not infallible, it will admit to getting things wrong or it will say that what is being advanced may not be definitive but it is the best explanation that can be given at the time.
It is a faith-based belief that is not open to other means of exploring the truth.
I have yet to hear a Christian, a Muslim, or a person of any other religious faith say that what they believe is wrong. Quite the contrary. They claim to have the truth, it's the rest of us who are wrong!

 

[zippy2006]

No, an aircraft can fly thanks to the scientific principles of aerodynamics and thrust. These principles are in operation thousands of times a day, every day, as aircraft crisscross the sky.

It's funny you mention this, because science literally doesn't know why airplanes fly. It turns out that in this case you have more faith in science than science has in itself.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood?

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

Yes because free speech is a political issue and the government has no right to tell anyone what to believe or what they can say? Its only role is as a protector of individual rights including the right to free speech. No one has the right to harm others though and it's proper for the government to step in in such a case. As for punishment, I think it should be proportional to the damage done to someone's life or property as a result of the falsehood.

 

[Strathos]

I have yet to hear a Christian, a Muslim, or a person of any other religious faith say that what they believe is wrong. Quite the contrary. They claim to have the truth, it's the rest of us who are wrong!

That's a tautology. If you thought that what you believed was wrong, then, by definition, you wouldn't believe it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, otherwise it's not free, but regulated speech.

 

[Kylie]

It's funny you mention this, because science literally doesn't know why airplanes fly. It turns out that in this case you have more faith in science than science has in itself.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

You make it sound like it's a total mystery, and that's just not the case.

High pressure below the wings, low pressure above the wings. The details are complex, of course, but that's essentially it.

 

[hedrick]

It's funny you mention this, because science literally doesn't know why airplanes fly. It turns out that in this case you have more faith in science than science has in itself.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

I think this statement may be misleading. There are excellent computer models. Those models are obviously based on good understanding of fluid flow. The problem seems to be in producing a nontechnical way of explaining it.

 

[John Helpher]

Yes because free speech is a political issue

Not quite. It is a concept which has been politicized. The ideal behind free speech, as a concept, was to guarantee protection for important or unpopular speech, like speaking out against corruption. But, there is no law, or set of laws which can guarantee righteousness in all circumstances for all people. This is one of the most significant lessons from the OT. Genuinely free speech is only possible when it is regulated by wisdom.

Its only role is as a protector of individual rights including the right to free speech.

No one has the right to harm others though and it's proper for the government to step in in such a case.

This is the problem with referring to the concept of free speech as free speech. Calling it "free" gives the impression that there should be no restriction whatsoever, and yet there is no human on the earth who genuinely believes that. If someone is lying about you in a way that hurts you, your family, your ideology, or your business, you will not say that he has a right to tell such lies. The intent behind the phrase was never meant to justify all speech of any kind for any reason. Rather, it's meant to communicate that people should have the freedom to speak up without fear of punishment if they see a problem.

Perhaps it is a maturity issue. Americans, in particular, have become so high on their own sense of righteous freedom that they've twisted it to suggest that any person opinion becomes fact by virtue that you have the freedom to express it.

In an essay by C.S. Lewis on the rather barbaric practice of vivisection (performing surgery on animals without anesthetic), he notes that many supporters of the practice justify it on the basis that we humans are superior to animals and therefore have the right to do with them as we please.

Lewis concedes that we are superior to animals, but only in so much as we behave in a superior way. Obviously, disregarding the pain we cause to others just because we can is not superior behavior. It's a bit like the king who feels the need to say, "I am the king"; when he does that, he is no longer a king.

Freedom, as a concept, only has merit when it is interpreted through the context of integrity, character, and wisdom.

 

[zippy2006]

You make it sound like it's a total mystery, and that's just not the case.

High pressure below the wings, low pressure above the wings. The details are complex, of course, but that's essentially it.

I think this statement may be misleading. There are excellent computer models. Those models are obviously based on good understanding of fluid flow. The problem seems to be in producing a nontechnical way of explaining it.

Both of these answers are incorrect. As to Kylie: Bernoulli's theorem is not a comprehensive explanation of lift. As to Hedrick: we understand that certain things produce lift, but we don't fully know why. It's not a question of technical vs non-technical explanations.

Or: Just read the article I posted (or any of the others that have been written on this topic).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

Depends. Defamation is libel or slander that can be prosecuted; so one doesn't have the right to defame.

As for laws on the matter, it depends on where I imagine.

Free speech, like all individual liberties, have limits.

-CryptoLutheran