Thread: Freedom of Speech

Here is another article that talks about the concept that I'm trying to get to, that in addition to the first amendment, we need to develop a culture of allowing people to speak the truth (a society that cannot discuss its problems cannot solve them). Disclaimer: the following article does mention Israel in passing. I apologize to those who are tired of me talking about it, but I guess I'm not the only one who's upset about Gaza. It also talks about "US war crimes," another of my obsessions, so if this will send you into a rage, please don't read it.

In America, Speaking the Truth Is a Career-ending Event

Originally Posted by sicboater

Uhhh. It looks like you guys are on the same page. Libel and Slander suits are not criminal, they are civil and damages must be proven to exist for them to be fruitful for the plaintiff. Threatening communication may be criminally actionable depending on the circumstances. In the end all of these actions conspire to "hurt" in a measurable way. Did I miss something? It just seems like you are both saying the same thing.

-Rob

I dunno, I kind of took Brad's point to be "you're free to say what you like, but by the same extension someone who doesn't like what you say is also free to pop a cap in yo' ass. Which means you won't be free to say anything anymore."

Interesting point. As others have noted, we enjoy free speech in a legal way, but we're certainly not free from its outcome, especially violent outcomes. Like assassination if you speak out over a very emotional subject. I may be free to preach what I like, but if it ends up with me being killed, I'm not sure I count that as being free.

In that way none of us are free to say whatever we want, particularly in situations which lead to a violent societal breakdown. If the outcome is death, then ergo there's no freedom? Perhaps that's why incitement to hatred is a crime in many countries and states (including the UK)?

Originally Posted by majurey

I dunno, I kind of took Brad's point to be "you're free to say what you like, but by the same extension someone who doesn't like what you say is also free to pop a cap in yo' ass. Which means you won't be free to say anything anymore."

Interesting point. As others have noted, we enjoy free speech in a legal way, but we're certainly not free from its outcome, especially violent outcomes. Like assassination if you speak out over a very emotional subject. I may be free to preach what I like, but if it ends up with me being killed, I'm not sure I count that as being free.

In that way none of us are free to say whatever we want, particularly in situations which lead to a violent societal breakdown. If the outcome is death, then ergo there's no freedom? Perhaps that's why incitement to hatred is a crime in many countries and states (including the UK)?

The negative outcome doesn't need to be that dramatic. It could be simply losing a job. I would say that the fear of losing ones job is a very powerful gag on free speech. This is why professor's are given tenure and they are very good and quiet until they get it. I'm sure that Chomsky would not be as outspoken as he is if he didn't have tenure.

Originally Posted by majurey

Interesting point. As others have noted, we enjoy free speech in a legal way, but we're certainly not free from its outcome, especially violent outcomes. Like assassination if you speak out over a very emotional subject. I may be free to preach what I like, but if it ends up with me being killed, I'm not sure I count that as being free.

you can be killed for being a certain race or sexual orientation, does that mean you're not free to be so?

Just because some jackass breaks the law and kills you for something doesn't mean you weren't free to do it. After all, most legal systems frown on murder.

Originally Posted by jockeys

you can be killed for being a certain race or sexual orientation, does that mean you're not free to be so?

Just because some jackass breaks the law and kills you for something doesn't mean you weren't free to do it. After all, most legal systems frown on murder.

Freedom has both a legal and cultural dimension. You may be "free" to do something in a certain society but, if you do it and everyone shuns you, then in a certain sense you are not "free". Something may start as a cultural practice, redlining by banks, segregated neighborhoods, job discrimination, etc., that restricted peoples freedom but were not against the law until there was social pressure and laws were passed.

Nothing is free in the sense that there is no cost associated with that freedom, but having legal protection for freedom goes a long way

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Nothing is free in the sense that there is no cost associated with that freedom, but having legal protection for freedom goes a long way

In many cases, legal protection is only theoretical because the time, energy and resources needed to pursue it are lacking.

Sort of building on Jockeys' fantastic post, I see free speech as the freedom to be a dick or have a differing opinion, and when you're in court because you were a dick to someone and they punched you, you'll win. Thus, people don't tend to hit you for being a dick (though I have been kicked).

Not to say that I'm not a nice guy, since I tend to be very courteous (I'm southern after all), but I don't want to live in a place where I can't say "you know what, I think you and your people are f*ckin' nuts" or "X religion is stupid" or "I hate X" or "X government sucks, there needs to be a change". I like to live in a place where I can claim that southerners are more courteous than northerners, and northerners can claim I'm a yokel, and no one gets their panties in a wad.

Take it for what you will

I just don't count that as freedom. By that logic, I'm free to post what I like on this forum. I can be a dick, I can be provocative as hell. Sure, there are forum rules (equivalent to country or state laws) that say I will suffer consequences if I write certain things, but hey, I'm still free to write them.

Then the post is removed, or my account is closed and I'm banned, etc. So exactly how free was I to write what I did? Not much, by my reckoning, since it prevents me from writing or saying the same thing or anything at all in future. The same with country/state laws -- you can spout racist poison at a demonstration in London, for example, but you'll get arrested for it. That kind of compromises the value of 'freedom' as jockeys describes, to me anyway.

Originally Posted by majurey

I just don't count that as freedom. By that logic, I'm free to post what I like on this forum. I can be a dick, I can be provocative as hell. Sure, there are forum rules (equivalent to country or state laws) that say I will suffer consequences if I write certain things, but hey, I'm still free to write them.

Close, but no cigar.
In your scenario, you would be free in the legal sense, but you would still be at my mercy, so you would not be free in a 'real' sense.

When you joined, you agreed with our terms of use, which includes things about not doing anything illegal, and not being an asshole (but in nicer wording )
So you are definitely not free in the 'legal' sense because there is a contract between you and SRP, in which you agree not to do certain things.

The law does not take away you ability to do something. It only takes away your right to do something, so that when you do, there can be legal consequences.

Practical example:
You are not free to post spam. That does not mean that you cannot do it in the physical sense. But it means that if you do, I can kick you out according to the rulebook.