Thread: Freedom of Speech

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.

Originally Posted by majurey

-- 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.

You can spout racist poison at a demonstration in American, for example, but the cops aren't allowed to arrest you for it, because it's not illegal.

So, pretty free here. True freedom of speech, the freedom to be a dick, and liberty in general is pretty important to us bloody colonials.

Originally Posted by jockeys

You can spout racist poison at a demonstration in American, for example, but the cops aren't allowed to arrest you for it, because it's not illegal.

So, pretty free here. True freedom of speech, the freedom to be a dick, and liberty in general is pretty important to us bloody colonials.

During halloween, a man got a visit from the secret service, making him take down the McCain and Palin effigies he had decorated his house with.
Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not allowed either.
Publicly expressing that you want certain bad things to happen will get you a visit from the secret service, FBI, or DHS, depending on what it is you said. And with some bad luck, you are in for a world of grief.

So you are not free at all. You are just un-free in different ways than us.

Originally Posted by Bruno

you are not free at all

The only restrictions we have on freedom are that we can't restrict the protected rights of others. Our Constitution doesn't give or take away rights, it protects rights by keeping you from trying to take mine

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The only restrictions we have on freedom are that we can't restrict the protected rights of others. Our Constitution doesn't give or take away rights, it protects rights by keeping you from trying to take mine

But the examples I brought up in my previous post are real.

Assuming your government has the legal foundation to act like that, you do not have absolute free speech.
And if they don't have that foundation but you let them act like that, then your freedom is just an illusion, waved in front of your eyes to keep you content.

In both cases, your absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

Originally Posted by Bruno

In both cases, your absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

I don't know of anyone claiming an ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. (Speech meant to incite violence, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, etc...these are disallowed.)

There is no absolute LEGAL freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Bruno

But the examples I brought up in my previous post are real.

You're right, I'm not free to violate someone else's freedom. My freedom of speech is protected in that nobody else has the freedom to take it from me. Just because I am not free to take your freedom doesn't mean my freedom is an illusion or that I am "not free at all"!

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I don't know of anyone claiming an ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. (Speech meant to incite violence, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, etc...these are disallowed.)

There is no absolute LEGAL freedom of speech.

No joke, I'm trying to figure out how not having absolute freedom (what does that mean? anarchy?) is equivalent to not being free at all

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

You're right, I'm not free to violate someone else's freedom. My freedom of speech is protected in that nobody else has the freedom to take it from me. Just because I am not free to take your freedom doesn't mean my freedom is an illusion or that I am "not free at all"!

But how is putting up effigies of Palin and McCain taking away someone's freedom?
Or saying certain objectionable things?

And yet you are not allowed to do so. So the fact you are not allowed to do so has nothing to do with someone else's freedom (this is getting confusing...)

You are not allowed to do so because the law (in the person of the judicial system / government) restricts you.

Btw my 'not at all' was meant in the context of absolute (true) freedom of speech which was mentioned by jockeys, and not in the sense of 'completely none'. Perhaps not the best choice of words...