Thread: Freedom of Speech

going back to the start of the thread (I have no interest in Israel or Palestine) I'd say that where I live, at least, we generally do have freedom of speech.


We can say whatever we please. But we are also responsible for what I say. I'm free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And I'm free to be charged with manslaughter if someone dies in the ensuing panic.

I'm free to hate, and I'm free to be intolerant. I'm free to incite violence, and I'm free to be put on trial for it. I'm free to speak out against a particular group, whether by race, color, nationality, creed or sexual orientation. I'm free to say that I hate them, and I'm free to say that others should as well. In fact, I'm in the clear right up until I suggest that someone hurts them. Then I'm free to get in trouble.

I'm free to deny historical events. I can accuse the gov't of faking the moon landing, and I'm free to say the Holocaust didn't happen. People will think I'm loony, but I'm free to do so without fear of retribution. As long as my speech hurts feelings and not people or property, I'm free to be a hateful asshole.

That's what the First Amendment means to me. The freedom to be a dick to everyone. The freedom to tell an elected leader that he's an incompetent douche that couldn't find his own ass with both hands, and not have to worry about the gov't jailing me for dissent. The freedom to have my own opinions, no matter how controversial, and air them publicly. The freedom to give children the middle finger. The freedom to roll down my window and tell other drivers EXACTLY what I think of their driving skill.

Or the freedom to keep my mouth shut and not make waves. It's my choice.

Originally Posted by jockeys

That's what the First Amendment means to me. The freedom to be a dick to everyone ... ... It's my choice.

But doesn't everyone everywhere have that kind of freedom? Except in some places that freedom comes at a much higher price than in other places. The first amendment is a restriction on how government can react to you being a dick - at least that's how I think of it

Originally Posted by jockeys

We can say whatever we please. But we are also responsible for what I say. I'm free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And I'm free to be charged with manslaughter if someone dies in the ensuing panic.

I am assuming by "free" you mean allowed with no legal repercussions. If you can be prosecuted for saying certain things, such as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater or direct threats against someone's life then there are things you cannot freely say. Of course we already know you free to be a dickly as you like (haha) but let's not confuse rude with dangerous and harmful.

First and foremost, you need to understand that the whole first ammendment thing only applies to the government. So, in the context of free speach, the government is not allowed, with very few exceptions, to restrict topics of discussion. Private individuals, however, are not restricted in this regard and are free to limit speach as they see fit, limited only by the extent of their authority. Thus, I am perfectly free to tell anyone that within my house, certain topics, words, or modes of expression are not allowed and will result in punitive action. Since corporatations are under the law private individuals, they are also free to restrict speach.

Originally Posted by icedog

I am assuming by "free" you mean allowed with no legal repercussions. If you can be prosecuted for saying certain things, such as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater or direct threats against someone's life then there are things you cannot freely say. Of course we already know you free to be a dickly as you like (haha) but let's not confuse rude with dangerous and harmful.

No, I mean "free" as in no one can stop me. I listed specific examples and which ones I can be punished for, under the laws where I live.

To wit:
hurting people and property = punishable
hurting feelings and offending peoples' religious or moral sensibilities = not punishable

Thus hate speech (a ridiculous term if one ever was) is allowed, as long as I do not explicity issue a call to action to harm people or property.

I think the biggest confusion on free speech is you are free to say most things without fear of the government locking you up. You are not however free from scorn if you say something people don't like.

So freedom of speech is not a rallying cry if you say something offensive and get called on it. It's only a reallying cry if the cops take you to jail.

Originally Posted by jockeys

No, I mean "free" as in no one can stop me.

Oh, people can stop you. They may or may not be punished by the state for doing so, but they are "free" to stop you.

Originally Posted by fccexpert

First and foremost, you need to understand that the whole first ammendment thing only applies to the government. So, in the context of free speach, the government is not allowed, with very few exceptions, to restrict topics of discussion. Private individuals, however, are not restricted in this regard and are free to limit speach as they see fit, limited only by the extent of their authority. Thus, I am perfectly free to tell anyone that within my house, certain topics, words, or modes of expression are not allowed and will result in punitive action. Since corporatations are under the law private individuals, they are also free to restrict speach.

I understand that what you are saying is correct but it doesn't seem right. Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that there were only one employer. It follows that there would be no free speech regardless of what the government can or can't do. This is not such a far fetched idea as it sounds. In many industries, we have a very few employers and a person with controversial views can be blacklisted within his industry. Such as Norman Finkelstein in academia or Greg Palast in journalism.

You mentioned that corporations can restrict speech with very few exceptions. One of those exceptions is probably labor union organizing, right? What are the others?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I understand that what you are saying is correct but it doesn't seem right. Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that there were only one employer. It follows that there would be no free speech regardless of what the government can or can't do. This is not such a far fetched idea as it sounds. In many industries, we have a very few employers and a person with controversial views can be blacklisted within his industry. Such as Norman Finkelstein in academia or Greg Palast in journalism.

You mentioned that corporations can restrict speech with very few exceptions. One of those exceptions is probably labor union organizing, right? What are the others?

Labor union organizing is actually one of the areas where they have to be careful.

A typical example is a corporation can have a policy against inappropriate sexual speech or any kind of hate speech. Totally sensible - the corporation is slowed if a someone is running aroudn spreading noverl ideas about religious or racial groups, and female employee fuctionality is impaired if they are being hit on, or if they have to talk to this person and not that person because that person if going to make a comment aboutt their skirt.

For people operating in the real world trying to get real things done, the goal isn't to maximize freedome of expression on things that are divisive and irrelevant to the business' function.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

For people operating in the real world trying to get real things done, the goal isn't to maximize freedome of expression on things that are divisive and irrelevant to the business' function.

Yeah, I agree with that part. What I was trying get at is that there are industries, such as the media, where you can ruin your career if you don't toe the corporate line. Here is a blog posting, on Mondoweiss, that talks about it:

M.J. Rosenberg on the 'serious career risks' in criticizing Israel