Is freedom of speech over-rated

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Error has no rights.

Who determines what constitutes "error"?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nah. If you take the 'free' part out of 'free speech', then it no longer is free. There would be consequences to speech, thus someone can come along, at any time, and decide what can or can't be censored based upon what they feel to be hate speech or whatever.

Like, Christians already are accused of practicing hate speech all the time if they aren't ardent supporters of the LGBT community. I was called a racist because I didn't like Obama's policies. I only mention that to say, where would the line be drawn if you can just consider what someone says is a hate speech and effectively shut them down from supporting a candidate they want, protesting who they want, worshiping who and how they want, what beliefs they can uphold and share, the types of messages pastors and priests can speak about from the pulpit, and on an on.

Once you start taking that path, there's no way to know how far it will be pushed and it effectively takes away our freedom to express ourselves in any way we deem fit.

When you were accused of pushing "hate speech", did anyone suggest your so-called "hate speech" should be against the law? Because in a free speech country, terming your speech "hate speech" can be just more exercise of free speech.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In CF you are not permitted to say anything which supports breaking tbe law. So my answer has to be to respect the laws of the country youre in whether you agree with them or not.

I dont agree with capital punishment but I respect the fact that someone caught with drugs in Singapore may face the death penalty.

As to your point I believe in freedom of religious practice but have to obey the law wherever I am.

We can definitely speak to the need to change the law.

 

[Saucy]

When you were accused of pushing "hate speech", did anyone suggest your so-called "hate speech" should be against the law? Because in a free speech country, terming your speech "hate speech" can be just more exercise of free speech.

That's my point. You can call it hate speech if you want to, but the OP was about silencing voices that we deem hateful, and that's what I'm against. Like I already said, if you don't like what someone says, counter protest it. That's fine. But wanting to fine people for speech, censor speech, and riot to stop free speech takes away the freedom aspect of it.

 

[Haipule]

Here's another example of what I mean by Freedom vs. Anarchy:

“Bill, you are a HOMOPHOBE!” Hardly! I have been given, by the Living God, instructions, through His Word, on how I am to conduct myself in society as a Christian! These Laws are NOT suggestions! Just like a chef, I fear the hot stove and therefore, respect it and with it, can make you a delicious meal. If I have no fear of the hot stove, and therefore, have no respect of its power, I could easily burn down the house! Therefore, I am not a “homophobe”: I am a THEOPHOBE! I FEAR GOD and His wrath--NOT YOU! Live and let live would have been a great idea but, you guys are drowning us in your anarchy, which you erroneously call “freedom”, and your tyranny, which you erroneously call “justice”! You, in your tyranny, are NOT here to tell us how “WE”, as Christians, are to think, speak and live! “WE”, as Christians, either submit to our Living God’s charges concerning life, or suffer the consequences of His fierce wrath! ‘Nuff said--CHRISTIOPHOBE(fear of Christians)!

 

[PeaceB]

Who determines what constitutes "error"?

This is a Christian forum. Why don't you take a wild guess?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This is a Christian forum. Why don't you take a wild guess?

I live in a country that has a constitutional provision against a government establishment of religion. Are you asserting we should disregard that provision and support a Christian point of view in all cases of speech determinations?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's my point. You can call it hate speech if you want to, but the OP was about silencing voices that we deem hateful, and that's what I'm against. Like I already said, if you don't like what someone says, counter protest it. That's fine. But wanting to fine people for speech, censor speech, and riot to stop free speech takes away the freedom aspect of it.

Well of course!

 

[PeaceB]

I live in a country that has a constitutional provision against a government establishment of religion. Are you asserting we should disregard that provision and support a Christian point of view in all cases of speech determinations?

Yes. Error has no rights. I live in the USA.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

"Is freedom of speech over-rated?"

No, it's just misunderstood (no doubt by yourself, the OP, as well). Few people understand that the right to free speech is traced from the inverse: that you do not have the right to demand someone what and how they may or may not speak/idealize or how they may or may not express themselves.

Ergo, it's not that I have the right to speak or express myself however which way I want, but that you don't have the right to stop me from doing so. It's simply easier to say that we have the right to free speech, and so that's how it is declared.

Plus, humans will always be more likely to embrace anything just because it's declared as the forbidden fruit than not, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Why should the censoring of ideas be any different? As an example, the number one reason people believe the Holocaust didn't happen is because of the censorship behind it (I guarantee you that much).

OH... and I'm just reminded: if you mean free speech while accessing someone else's property, they do have the general right to shut you down (although, they should beware of the consequences of doing so without regards for any government paper).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes. Error has no rights. I live in the USA.

I notice you are catholic, whereas I am baptist. That means your religion is in error to baptize babies and pray to Mary. So perhaps I should get the constitution changed so that you spend some time in jail for those erroneous practices. Why not? After all, you agree error has no rights.

 

[PeaceB]

I notice you are catholic, whereas I am baptist. That means your religion is in error to baptize babies and pray to Mary.

Well those are topics of discussion for other threads, but for the sake of argument let's assume that it is wrong to baptize infants and to pray to Mary.

So perhaps I should get the constitution changed so that you spend some time in jail for those erroneous practices. Why not? After all, you agree error has no rights.

The punishment has to fit the crime. I doubt baptizing an infant would warrant the penalty of time in jail, but for the sake of argument let's assume that is an appropriate punishment. Let's also assume that principles of tolerance would not justify forbearance of the penalty.

Of course, I do not believe that all of the above assumptions are true, but if they were true, then yes, you would be justified in attempting to amend the laws as you propose.

I do not see why that result would be problematic. There are plenty of laws that are moral in nature, that we impose on others. The laws against incest and polygamy are primarily moral in nature, but not too many people have qualms with enforcing these restrictions (nor should they).

 

[Zoii]

"Is freedom of speech over-rated?"

No, it's just misunderstood (no doubt by yourself, the OP, as well). Few people understand that the right to free speech is traced from the inverse: that you do not have the right to demand someone what and how they may or may not speak/idealize or how they may or may not express themselves.

Ergo, it's not that I have the right to speak or express myself however which way I want, but that you don't have the right to stop me from doing so. It's simply easier to say that we have the right to free speech, and so that's how it is declared.

Plus, humans will always be more likely to embrace anything just because it's declared as the forbidden fruit than not, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Why should the censoring of ideas be any different? As an example, the number one reason people believe the Holocaust didn't happen is because of the censorship behind it (I guarantee you that much).

OH... and I'm just reminded: if you mean free speech while accessing someone else's property, they do have the general right to shut you down (although, they should beware of the consequences of doing so without regards for any government paper).

So by using your argument, you have no right to stop children verbally bullying a child at school because under free speech they have every right to do so.... by your argument you have no right to prevent anyone using foul language anywhere they choose, nor do you have the right to use the laws of slander because we should be free to say what we want any time we want according to your principles. .. but we dont do we

 

[Vyrzaharak]

So by using your argument, you have no right to stop children verbally bullying a child at school because under free speech they have every right to do so... by your argument you have no right to prevent anyone using foul language anywhere they choose, nor do you have the right to use the laws of slander because we should be free to say what we want any time we want according to your principles... but we dont do we

I have not the slightest bit of a clue what you're even trying to state, so I can't help but suggest that you refine yourself more thoroughly.

 

[GandalfTheWise]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

So by using your argument, you have no right to stop children verbally bullying a child at school because under free speech they have every right to do so.... by your argument you have no right to prevent anyone using foul language anywhere they choose, nor do you have the right to use the laws of slander because we should be free to say what we want any time we want according to your principles. .. but we dont do we

You are adroitly noting some serious issues. I think however that there is a better solution than limiting speech. (Skip to the last paragraph if I am too boring here. )

As person who has read a lot of history, government restrictions on freedom of speech concern me more than abuses of it. It is usually when dissenting voices are silenced that problems occur. Most of the "laws" used to silence dissenters are supposedly for positive things like the public good.

In the case of the Nazis and the Hutu majority government, a powerful elite eliminated opposition in order to do whatever they wanted. The German state police (gestapo) largely silenced the opposition to the Nazis. My understanding is that the Hutu government also killed and eliminated Hutu moderates who opposed them in addition to the targeted Tutsis. It was partially the elimination of freedom of speech and the silencing of opponents that allowed the horrors to occur and continue.

Freedom of speech is open to abuse. It is a very serious question if the best solution is to allow governments to put limitations on it to stop abuses. No matter how well-written any law is, it will have unintended consequences. Abusers will figure out ways to communicate their abuse within the letter of the law. Political opportunists will figure out ways of using such laws to legally silence their opponents. My sense is that most laws attempting to restrict abuses are only partly successful and open up the door to attacks on what should be legitimate free speech.

Ultimately, I'm not sure how much effect any well-intentioned law might have. In the U.S. there are forms of speech (and writing) that are not legally protected because of the damage they can cause. For example, to my understanding, libel and slander are not protected. However, politicians and activists have figured out how to effectively libel and slander people without violating the law. In the U.S. (my understanding, not legal advice!) is that there is legal difference between saying "I am terrified that politician X is potentially disturbingly unqualified and might be psychotic and dangerous" and saying "Politician X is disturbingly unqualified, psychotic, and dangerous." One expresses my emotional state and unprofessional opinion and the other claims to be a fact according to some objective standard. To the typical listener, either statement carries about the same weight. Another common attack is something like "according to some anonymous sources, Politician X allegedly kicks puppies." All most people hear is "Politician X kicks puppies". It's rare that anyone ever gets sued for such things and it goes on all the time.

How do we best stop bullying or profanity or personal insults and hurtful things? Ultimately, social pressure is probably the most effective tool in the long run. Unfortunately, much of western culture has left people alone and isolated in groups without much choice as to who is there. We stick every kid into school with the same group of kids year after year who happen to be the same age. We get stuck in a job with coworkers we cannot choose. These groups develop their own pecking order. Sometimes these groups are healthy. Many times they are not. At the last place I worked, there was one group consisting of about 7 or 8 women and 2 positions that kept turning over every month or so because those women were so toxic no one could stand to be around them. One person left in less than a week. I have 3 daughters. The oldest had a good set of friends and was fine in school. The younger 2 were not. My middle daughter got bullied a lot. My youngest daughter informed us a week before her junior year that she was not going back and wanted to be home schooled (which we let her do). Frankly, limitations on speech would have done little good. It is an unhealthy culture that isolates groups of kids with a couple authority figures and then mostly leaves them to sort out their own pecking order among themselves. The most dominant, forceful, and "popular" personalities emerge and inflict themselves on everyone else. My observation is that bullies thrive in isolated groups where they have more or less free run of the group. It's also been my observation that bullies often end up on the sidelines when many groups with differences get to interact a lot more. I don't think this is a free speech issue so much as the consequences of treating people like cattle in the educational and corporate business system we have. Without healthy communities to be part of in school or at work, dysfunction is the natural consequence. I think the best solution is a radical change of our culture along the lines of community and belonging instead of packing people through systems for maximum efficiency. At best, limits on speech are a bandaid.

 

[PhantomGaze]

I'd like to see dueling with pistols re-instituted .. You get a court order and issue a formal challenge to the source (no proxy)over a matter .. They accept then settle it in public, they refuse, they shut up and go away . I'd like to see how many would put their life on the line to spread a lie ..Turn eye to eye and aim for 60 seconds count down (last chance to back out or follow through by legal agreement), then fire under command with no advantage and little chance of missing ..

That's not how most pistol duels went. Normally, neither of the individuals were really intent on killing each other. The duel between Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr was unusual. Although, I have to agree, it would be interesting to see how many people would show up and risk their lives for the sake of what they were saying.

 

[4x4toy]

Ha, my new rules PG . I'd also like to see public beatings brought back for convicted vandalism and such ..

 

[ShawnV78]

Just because we have "Freedom of Speech" here in the US, that doesn't automatically mean there is freedom from consequences. You have the right to say what you want, however we're all human beings and have different views and different beliefs. We all come from different upbringings and cultures. So what you say may be acceptable to one group while to another may be offensive.
For instance if someone uses their public platform as an entertainer or high public status and pushes their political stance or view on certain touchy topics, there are going to be those who disagree. So yes they had the right to express themselves, however those who don't agree or take offense also have the right to their voice. The consequence in doing so can and has in the past and present resulted in those who don't agree taking their business or interests elsewhere. My case in point is the country music group Dixie Chicks. They expressed their right to free speech and it offended a large group of their fans. The result their fans took their business elsewhere and the Dixie Chicks fell of the country music scene. They still had and have the right to freedom of speech but there is still consequences.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I could say the same about left-wing ideologies and how they try to shut down free speech by rioting. Is that okay to do? To stop someone from speaking at a university? At what point does the side doing the censoring become the bad guys? They think they're fighting against hate and fascism by spreading hate and fascism themselves. Isn't that bullying in itself?

The Supreme Court just ruled that hate speech is protected speech. That's the law of the land. My rights don't end where someone else's feelings begin. Yes, there will always be people who take things too far, but when you start taking rights away over hurt feelings, that's when we start treading in deep water.

Well said! In the United States free speech is only limited with respect to certain calls to action, theft of intellectual property, and slander. There used to be a time when folks realized that the first amendment meant that they would support the rights of another to say things that would make their skin crawl. This was reaffirmed by SCOTUS in the landmark ruling National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie in 1977 where they ruled that neo-Nazis, as repulsive as they are, have the right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate. Unfortunately these days some folks seem to think the first amendment should be modified to exclude anything that hurts their feelings.

 

[HighCherub]

Freedom of speech is one several mechanisms the Founding Fathers enacted to resist tyranny. It was as important to them as freedom of religion and the right to bear arms.