How strongly do you believe in freedom of speech?

[Meekly_Anna]

Alright, mate, let's get down to brass tacks. The right to free speech is a proper cornerstone of any democratic society. It's the whole shebang that lets us chew the fat, challenge the powers that be, and have a good old moan about things. But thinking it's a standalone, no-holds-barred pass to say whatever you fancy is a bit of a dog's dinner. The thing is, free speech can't swan about on its own; it's got to be weighed up against all the other human rights in the deck. It's a tricky balancing act, a bit like trying to juggle eggs on a unicycle. .

If you had to pick one human right that’s the bee's knees, it's human dignity. It's not just another right; it's the foundation upon which all the others are built. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights kicks off by saying that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. This means that every single person, no matter who they are, has an inherent worth and must be treated with respect. This isn't just a quaint idea; it's the very reason we have rights at all. If free speech is used to undermine someone's dignity—say, through hate speech, harassment, or defamation—it's essentially chipping away at the very foundation of what it means to be human. When a loudmouth on a soapbox spouts vitriol that demeans a whole group of people, they aren't just expressing an opinion; they're actively harming the fundamental dignity of others. That's a huge no-no.

This brings us to a crucial point: your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. This is a brilliant, albeit slightly old-fashioned, way of saying that the rights of an individual are not limitless. They must always stop short of infringing on the rights of others in an undue manner. Think of it like a public park. You have the right to play your music, but not so loud that it stops everyone else from enjoying their quiet afternoon. Similarly, while you have the right to express yourself, you don't have the right to say things that incite violence, spread dangerous disinformation that harms public health, or systematically denigrate a person or group to the point of stripping them of their humanity.
When free speech crosses this line, it's no longer just an expression; it becomes a form of aggression or harm. This is why laws against incitement, defamation, and hate speech exist. They are not there to stifle conversation but to protect the other human rights that are just as vital: the right to safety, the right to non-discrimination, and, most importantly, the right to human dignity.
So, in the grand scheme of things, free speech is absolutely vital, a proper good thing. But it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's part of a broader, more complex picture where we all have to respect each other's fundamental rights. Otherwise, it's just a free-for-all, and that's a right old mess, isn't it?

Let me just say that I had a workload of fun
writing this.

 

[SimonDoom]

Alright, mate, let's get down to brass tacks. The right to free speech is a proper cornerstone of any democratic society. It's the whole shebang that lets us chew the fat, challenge the powers that be, and have a good old moan about things. But thinking it's a standalone, no-holds-barred pass to say whatever you fancy is a bit of a dog's dinner. The thing is, free speech can't swan about on its own; it's got to be weighed up against all the other human rights in the deck. It's a tricky balancing act, a bit like trying to juggle eggs on a unicycle. .

If you had to pick one human right that’s the bee's knees, it's human dignity. It's not just another right; it's the foundation upon which all the others are built. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights kicks off by saying that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. This means that every single person, no matter who they are, has an inherent worth and must be treated with respect. This isn't just a quaint idea; it's the very reason we have rights at all. If free speech is used to undermine someone's dignity—say, through hate speech, harassment, or defamation—it's essentially chipping away at the very foundation of what it means to be human. When a loudmouth on a soapbox spouts vitriol that demeans a whole group of people, they aren't just expressing an opinion; they're actively harming the fundamental dignity of others. That's a huge no-no.

This brings us to a crucial point: your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. This is a brilliant, albeit slightly old-fashioned, way of saying that the rights of an individual are not limitless. They must always stop short of infringing on the rights of others in an undue manner. Think of it like a public park. You have the right to play your music, but not so loud that it stops everyone else from enjoying their quiet afternoon. Similarly, while you have the right to express yourself, you don't have the right to say things that incite violence, spread dangerous disinformation that harms public health, or systematically denigrate a person or group to the point of stripping them of their humanity.
When free speech crosses this line, it's no longer just an expression; it becomes a form of aggression or harm. This is why laws against incitement, defamation, and hate speech exist. They are not there to stifle conversation but to protect the other human rights that are just as vital: the right to safety, the right to non-discrimination, and, most importantly, the right to human dignity.
So, in the grand scheme of things, free speech is absolutely vital, a proper good thing. But it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's part of a broader, more complex picture where we all have to respect each other's fundamental rights. Otherwise, it's just a free-for-all, and that's a right old mess, isn't it?

Let me just say that I had a workload of fun
writing this.

I'm curious where you are from?

There's a lot in what you say that's plausible, but it's not consistent with the law in the USA. In the USA, under the First Amendment, you are free to insult and say terrible things about other people, other groups, etc. You are free to be a Nazi and express Nazi views. Other countries' laws are different.

The problem I have with "the right of human dignity" is that it's so opaque. What does that mean, exactly? Should we criminalize insults?

The beauty of the "you can't swing your fist into someone's nose" analogy is its clarity. You CAN swing your fist . . . until you hit the skin of somebody's nose. That's clear.

When you infringe someone's dignity with speech is not at all clear. And I think what we see in practice is that once you open this door, it gets even less clear, because everybody has a different idea of where the metaphorical nose begins.

If I think a religious faith is terrible, and that the religious faith is ITSELF an assault on human dignity, then shouldn't I have the same right to criticize it and mock it as those who want to proselytize it? Surely people will be offended if I do so, but does their offense count any more than my offense at seeing terrible things done in the name of that religion? It's an impossible thing to mediate different people's senses of dignity and feelings. That's one of the reasons my inclination is to say: let's not go there. Just let people say what they want, and if you don't like it reply to them with your own speech. The government shouldn't get involved.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Expressions of hostility for Jews and East Asians anger me, but I do not want them to be censored, because it is easy for me to prove that most Jews and East Asians are good people. On some websites I have not been allowed to prove that. I was banned from Stormfront after two weeks for criticizing Hitler.

I dislike pornography, but I appreciate erotic art.

I am confident in my ability to defend my political opinions, so I like open political debate.

 

[Lazaran]

I'm curious where you are from?

There's a lot in what you say that's plausible, but it's not consistent with the law in the USA. In the USA, under the First Amendment, you are free to insult and say terrible things about other people, other groups, etc. You are free to be a Nazi and express Nazi views. Other countries' laws are different.

The problem I have with "the right of human dignity" is that it's so opaque. What does that mean, exactly? Should we criminalize insults?

The beauty of the "you can't swing your fist into someone's nose" analogy is its clarity. You CAN swing your fist . . . until you hit the skin of somebody's nose. That's clear.

When you infringe someone's dignity with speech is not at all clear. And I think what we see in practice is that once you open this door, it gets even less clear, because everybody has a different idea of where the metaphorical nose begins.

If I think a religious faith is terrible, and that the religious faith is ITSELF an assault on human dignity, then shouldn't I have the same right to criticize it and mock it as those who want to proselytize it? Surely people will be offended if I do so, but does their offense count any more than my offense at seeing terrible things done in the name of that religion? It's an impossible thing to mediate different people's senses of dignity and feelings. That's one of the reasons my inclination is to say: let's not go there. Just let people say what they want, and if you don't like it reply to them with your own speech. The government shouldn't get involved.

GMAMFB
GTFOH
FOAD
TIA


We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

Free speech is never free. You are free to say what you want, but not of the consequences. I never understand why people think that if they use their free speech to attack others, that they are free of the consequences of it. You can be banned from sites that do not endorse it, you can be verbally berated back, or you can be locked up if your speech does anything incriminating.

If I say to someone I'm going to murder them with a machete that I happen to have in my backpack, you bet there will be consequences. If I say to someone I love them, I'll get a lot if reaction. If I deny the Holocaust, it is a border to far.

Speech that hurts can hit deeper than a physical violence. That can heal rather quickly, while speech can hurt to the core. I never understood why you would disconnect the consequences of one to the other. Punch someone once and there's police involved, berate and insult them for a decade and there's nothing.

Free speech is a misnomer. Speech is never free. Maybe it's better that way. Because I like the idea that I'm heard.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

There's a crucial difference here, though. Both these crimes involve criminal destruction of property. The Washington law does not make the speech by itself punishable. You have to commit a criminal act, and if your criminal act is motivated by hate toward certain groups then it becomes a more serious crime. So that's not the same as a "hate speech" law.

Doing a burnout on a public road is not "destruction of property" in any meaningful sense.
What you have here is a Stalinesque, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" situation. As you well know a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. So, you might not be charged with "hate speech" but they are throwing the book at you BECAUSE of your speech.
It has the same chilling effect.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

I agree with the OP. I'm on the young side of Gen X.

 

[ronde]

Doing a burnout on a public road is not "destruction of property" in any meaningful sense.
What you have here is a Stalinesque, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" situation. As you well know a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. So, you might not be charged with "hate speech" but they are throwing the book at you BECAUSE of your speech.
It has the same chilling effect.

Many laws have been written with the intention of preventing commission of an actual crime. There is no immediate destruction of property caused by speeding or running a stop sign, but the consequences of such acts often do cause injury or a fatality to someone. It's the action or actions of an individual or individuals that is regulated by these laws, not the speech of someone or some group. The distinction is exactly what you state as being "Stalinesque". It's a simple matter to arrest and convict someone for their actions because the "proof" is factual. The problem with regulating speech is that the "proof" is only one person's opinion and the prosecutor's ability to put together a jury with like feelings. "I am offended by what you say or print, therefore you are guilty." That's when the prosecution based on laws intended to prevent any point of view from being expressed truly does become something out of Stalin's playbook to rid the country of those with dissenting opinions.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

I'm curious where you are from?

There's a lot in what you say that's plausible, but it's not consistent with the law in the USA. In the USA, under the First Amendment, you are free to insult and say terrible things about other people, other groups, etc. You are free to be a Nazi and express Nazi views. Other countries' laws are different.

The problem I have with "the right of human dignity" is that it's so opaque. What does that mean, exactly? Should we criminalize insults?

The beauty of the "you can't swing your fist into someone's nose" analogy is its clarity. You CAN swing your fist . . . until you hit the skin of somebody's nose. That's clear.

When you infringe someone's dignity with speech is not at all clear. And I think what we see in practice is that once you open this door, it gets even less clear, because everybody has a different idea of where the metaphorical nose begins.

If I think a religious faith is terrible, and that the religious faith is ITSELF an assault on human dignity, then shouldn't I have the same right to criticize it and mock it as those who want to proselytize it? Surely people will be offended if I do so, but does their offense count any more than my offense at seeing terrible things done in the name of that religion? It's an impossible thing to mediate different people's senses of dignity and feelings. That's one of the reasons my inclination is to say: let's not go there. Just let people say what they want, and if you don't like it reply to them with your own speech. The government shouldn't get involved.

I'm definitely not from the US and not from the UK either. I'm writing like that for a friend to give him a good laugh. He's British...

Anyway

Right then, let's get one thing straight: picking out a single right, like free speech, and chucking it on a pedestal above all the others is a load of old cobblers. It's a bit of a naive way to look at it, really, like thinking a football team can win with only a striker and no goalie. It's just not how it works, mate. All these rights, they're meant to work together, like a proper team.

Let's talk about why only looking at freedom of speech is total bollocks.
For starters, let's look at the big picture. All the rights in places like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are interdependent and indivisible. That's a fancy way of saying they're all linked and you can't have one without the others. Think of it like a bicycle wheel: each spoke is a right. If you go on about one spoke being the most important and snapping all the others, the whole wheel goes wobbly and you're going to fall off.
Free speech is a massive one, no doubt. It's the right to say what you think, to challenge the powers that be, and to get stuff out in the open. But what happens if your free speech is used to incite violence against someone? Or to slander someone and ruin their life? What about their right to safety, their right to a good name, or their right to live without fear? You can't just ignore those, can you? It's a proper mess. The right to free speech is not an excuse to take away someone else's rights. It's a right that comes with responsibility, and that's the bit a lot of people seem to forget. You can't just shout fire in a crowded theatre, as they say.

It's a delicate balance, you see. If we elevate free speech above all else, we end up with a bit of a free-for-all, a total shambles. The right to dignity and the right to a private life, for example, are crucial. If someone can say whatever they like about you, true or not, and there are no consequences, then what's the point of those other rights? They become meaningless. This is where it gets a bit murky.
In most proper legal systems, there are limitations on free speech. Things like hate speech, incitement to violence, and defamation are usually not protected. Why? Because they infringe on other people's rights. It's not about being 'woke' or 'politically correct,' it's about making sure everyone gets a fair shake. If we didn't have these limitations, society would fall apart. It would be a total dog's breakfast, pure chaos.
So, in a nutshell, don't be a wally and think one right is the king of the castle. They're all part of the same puzzle, and if you lose a piece, the whole picture is buggered. It's about a holistic view of human rights, where they all support and balance each other. That's the way it's meant to be. Simple as.

 

[SimonDoom]

Let's talk about why only looking at freedom of speech is total bollocks.
For starters, let's look at the big picture. All the rights in places like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are interdependent and indivisible. That's a fancy way of saying they're all linked and you can't have one without the others. Think of it like a bicycle wheel: each spoke is a right. If you go on about one spoke being the most important and snapping all the others, the whole wheel goes wobbly and you're going to fall off.
Free speech is a massive one, no doubt. It's the right to say what you think, to challenge the powers that be, and to get stuff out in the open. But what happens if your free speech is used to incite violence against someone? Or to slander someone and ruin their life? What about their right to safety, their right to a good name, or their right to live without fear? You can't just ignore those, can you? It's a proper mess. The right to free speech is not an excuse to take away someone else's rights. It's a right that comes with responsibility, and that's the bit a lot of people seem to forget. You can't just shout fire in a crowded theatre, as they say.

If you look at my first comment, I didn't say free speech was absolute. I gave myself a 95, not a 100. I agree it's appropriate to limit defamation, although I don't extend that to groups. I agree it's appropriate to limit incitement to violence, although I believe, as does the law in the USA, that "incitement" should be narrowly defined. So in theory we don't disagree, although we might apply the theory differently in specific cases.

 

[SimonDoom]

Doing a burnout on a public road is not "destruction of property" in any meaningful sense.

According to the story, two organizations paid $16,000 (presumably to the artists) to have a PRIDE-style crosswalk painted on a street. The man did a burnout with his truck over the crosswalk, destroying the painting. The man in question was charged with reckless driving and criminal mischief over $1,000, apart from any hate element. The hate toward the group was added as an enhancement. That's not just speech; it's conduct, and, to me at least, it certainly seems deserving of criminal punishment apart from any consideration of whether he was motivated by bigotry. So this isn't a pure case of punishing speech alone.

If someone did a burnout over an ordinary crosswalk and damaged it, forcing the city to incur money to have to repaint it, that could be a crime as well. This doesn't seem like a particularly disturbing case to me, unless one questions whether "hate" should be added as an enhancement to an otherwise middling crime.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

If you look at my first comment, I didn't say free speech was absolute. I gave myself a 95, not a 100. I agree it's appropriate to limit defamation, although I don't extend that to groups. I agree it's appropriate to limit incitement to violence, although I believe, as does the law in the USA, that "incitement" should be narrowly defined. So in theory we don't disagree, although we might apply the theory differently in specific cases.

Oh, I did. I got the impression you don't to be a "slave" of rules.
Mate, proper freedom ain't about doing whatever the hell you want. It's about a different kind of liberty, one that the Stoics, especially a geezer like Marcus Aurelius, knew all about. True freedom, from their perspective, comes from subjecting yourself to rules. It's a bit of a mind-bender, but hear me out.

For a Stoic, freedom isn't the absence of constraints; it's the mastery of your inner world. It's about being free from the things that truly hold you captive: your own unruly desires, negative emotions, and the opinions of others. Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations, repeatedly hammers this home. He's not talking about being a slave to some tyrant; he's talking about the tyranny of your own mind.
When you submit to a set of rules—specifically, the rules of reason and virtue—you're not giving up your freedom. You're actually gaining it. You're freeing yourself from the whim and chaos of your own impulses. Think of it like a footballer who follows the rules of the game. They're not a slave to the rules; the rules allow them to play the game properly and with purpose. The player who ignores the rules gets a red card and is sent off, losing the very thing they thought they were free from.

The rules Marcus Aurelius is on about aren't just any old rules. They're the rules of nature and reason. The Stoics believed that the universe is governed by a rational order, a cosmic plan. By living in accordance with this order, you're living a virtuous life. It’s a bit like a ship sailing with the wind rather than against it. When you align your actions and your thoughts with what's rational and good, you're no longer fighting an internal battle. You achieve a state of tranquility, or 'apatheia', which is the Stoic ideal. It's not apathy in the modern sense, but a freedom from being emotionally rattled by external events.
So, when you choose to act with courage, justice, and self-control—these are the Stoic virtues—you're choosing to follow a rulebook. But it's a rulebook you've chosen for yourself, based on reason. It's a voluntary submission to a higher standard. And in doing so, you become unshakeable. Other people's insults can't touch you, your own greed can't control you, and life's setbacks can't completely ruin you. That, my friend, is the real deal when it comes to freedom. It's an internal fortress no one can breach.

You see the difference between your Weltanschauung and mine?

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Ok, ok, I'm stopping

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh, I did. I got the impression you don't to be a "slave" of rules.
Mate, proper freedom ain't about doing whatever the hell you want. It's about a different kind of liberty, one that the Stoics, especially a geezer like Marcus Aurelius, knew all about. True freedom, from their perspective, comes from subjecting yourself to rules. It's a bit of a mind-bender, but hear me out.

For a Stoic, freedom isn't the absence of constraints; it's the mastery of your inner world. It's about being free from the things that truly hold you captive: your own unruly desires, negative emotions, and the opinions of others. Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations, repeatedly hammers this home. He's not talking about being a slave to some tyrant; he's talking about the tyranny of your own mind.
When you submit to a set of rules—specifically, the rules of reason and virtue—you're not giving up your freedom. You're actually gaining it. You're freeing yourself from the whim and chaos of your own impulses. Think of it like a footballer who follows the rules of the game. They're not a slave to the rules; the rules allow them to play the game properly and with purpose. The player who ignores the rules gets a red card and is sent off, losing the very thing they thought they were free from.

The rules Marcus Aurelius is on about aren't just any old rules. They're the rules of nature and reason. The Stoics believed that the universe is governed by a rational order, a cosmic plan. By living in accordance with this order, you're living a virtuous life. It’s a bit like a ship sailing with the wind rather than against it. When you align your actions and your thoughts with what's rational and good, you're no longer fighting an internal battle. You achieve a state of tranquility, or 'apatheia', which is the Stoic ideal. It's not apathy in the modern sense, but a freedom from being emotionally rattled by external events.
So, when you choose to act with courage, justice, and self-control—these are the Stoic virtues—you're choosing to follow a rulebook. But it's a rulebook you've chosen for yourself, based on reason. It's a voluntary submission to a higher standard. And in doing so, you become unshakeable. Other people's insults can't touch you, your own greed can't control you, and life's setbacks can't completely ruin you. That, my friend, is the real deal when it comes to freedom. It's an internal fortress no one can breach.

You see the difference between your Weltanschauung and mine?

I agree with most of what you wrote, but you're talking about freedom as a code of personal conduct rather than liberty as a constraint on government action. They're related, but they're different. Marcus Aurelius was concerned with how to live the right way. My focus is on what government can and cannot do. I agree that "the freedom you should live as your personal code" is not the same as "the freedom to do what you want free of governmental constraint," but I don't want government to impose its code of "stoicism" on me. I should have the freedom to choose my own code of living, free of government constraint, so long as my freedom does not clash with the freedom of others to do the same.

 

[SimonDoom]

Ok, ok, I'm stopping

OK. I appreciate the contribution.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

OK. I appreciate the contribution.

Sorry, you forced me to reply.

Right then, if you're a bit of a rebel and reckon you don't need to follow a country's laws, you're essentially embracing the core of anarchy. A state's entire existence is built on the idea that it has the authority to make rules and that its citizens will follow them. This is called the social contract. So, when you decide to say "sod that" to the rules and think you're above them, you're rejecting that social contract and the authority of the state. That's a classic anarchic move. It's not just about being a bit of a lawbreaker; it's about a fundamental refusal to accept the very idea of state control.
So what's Anarchy anyway?
Being anarchic means not wanting to be bound by the rules of a state. Anarchy is a political philosophy that believes society should exist without a government or a state.
Basically, anarchy is a political idea that thinks we'd all be better off without a bossy government telling us what to do. The term "anarchy" comes from the Greek word anarkhia, which literally means "without a ruler." So, in a nutshell, it's about a society that organises itself through voluntary cooperation instead of being controlled by a state.

Therefore, you are an anarchist. I say that without judgment. I don't see that as an insult.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sorry, you forced me to reply.

Right then, if you're a bit of a rebel and reckon you don't need to follow a country's laws, you're essentially embracing the core of anarchy. A state's entire existence is built on the idea that it has the authority to make rules and that its citizens will follow them. This is called the social contract. So, when you decide to say "sod that" to the rules and think you're above them, you're rejecting that social contract and the authority of the state. That's a classic anarchic move. It's not just about being a bit of a lawbreaker; it's about a fundamental refusal to accept the very idea of state control.
So what's Anarchy anyway?
Being anarchic means not wanting to be bound by the rules of a state. Anarchy is a political philosophy that believes society should exist without a government or a state.
Basically, anarchy is a political idea that thinks we'd all be better off without a bossy government telling us what to do. The term "anarchy" comes from the Greek word anarkhia, which literally means "without a ruler." So, in a nutshell, it's about a society that organises itself through voluntary cooperation instead of being controlled by a state.

Therefore, you are an anarchist. I say that without judgment. I don't see that as an insult.

I'm not an anarchist. I think it's appropriate to have a state.

My point is that the state imposes rules you can't cross, but those rules give different people substantial freedom to do as they please, within the rules. You don't have to live like Marcus Aurelius. The state's rules give you the option of living as a Stoic or living as an Epicurean. Marcus Aurelius provides no guide for what the state should and should not do.

Your freedom to speak is broader than the range of what you SHOULD say. Not all things that are immoral or wrong are criminalized. Lying is bad, and if everybody lied society would be worse, but it's not a crime to lie.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

I'm not an anarchist. I think it's appropriate to have a state.

My point is that the state imposes rules you can't cross, but those rules give different people substantial freedom to do as they please, within the rules. You don't have to live like Marcus Aurelius. The state's rules give you the option of living as a Stoic or living as an Epicurean. Marcus Aurelius provides no guide for what the state should and should not do.

Your freedom to speak is broader than the range of what you SHOULD say. Not all things that are immoral or wrong are criminalized. Lying is bad, and if everybody lied society would be worse, but it's not a crime to lie.

Do the rules really impose more freedom to some while restricting others? Or is is equal freedom, but some topics these people want to talk about are off limits. One is discrimination, the other has equal liberties.

Living in a society is in essence giving up some "freedom." You exchange your freedom steal or get stolen from, to murder or be murdered. Though the society as of yet can't prevent certain things like theft and murder from happening, they sure put up consequences. That means you also accept some rules on free speech. You might want to change them, but you can't ignore them. If you truly want free speech you must place yourself outside of society.

I still think speech is free. It is just not free of consequences. If it would be free of consequences, you're simply not being heard.

 

[Baztrachian]

How strongly do you believe in freedom of speech?

On a scale of 1 to 100, where 1 equals no freedom of speech and 100 equals total freedom of speech, where would you score your own position?

For example, do you believe that government (for the sake of simplicity and clarity, I'm concerned here only with governmental regulation of speech, not regulation by a corporation like, say, Facebook, which IS a significant issue but probably deserves its own thread), should criminalize or regulate:

hate speech, against people on grounds of ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.?
Blasphemy or criticism or mockery of other people's religious faiths?
denial of the holocaust?
Denial of things like vaccines, or climate change?
Obscenity?
Criticizing the state or state leaders?
Burning your country's flag?

My answers to all these questions is a hard "no," except in the case of obscenity or pornography where the production of the speech itself involves criminal activity, such as the use of real children.

I don't support obscenity laws at all, generally. Consenting adults should be able to read and watch whatever they want, unless the production involves illegal activity.

I'd probably give myself about a 95. I support some degree of regulation and in some cases criminalization of:

Infringement of intellectual property rights
Defamation of individuals and entities that are treated by the state as persons for certain limited purposes
Incitement to violence (where incitement is narrowly defined)
Espionage and disclosure of some state secrets and military secrets to foreign enemies (narrowly defined)

I also support limited time, place, and manner regulations on things like obscenity and extreme violence, such as keeping explicit sexual conduct off of broadcast television when children are likely to be watching

But that's about it. I'd probably give myself a 95. What about you?

ALSO, what generation are you? Boomer, Gen X, etc. I'm late Boomer, but I identify more with Gen Xers in some ways.

Reading your own assessment I'm going to have to say I'm with you across the board and I'm at a 95.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Strong enough to allow FUCKING NAZIS to protest in our streets and march with tiki torches at night.
Now, in broad daylight. OR... or those KKK folks.
BUT... more power to them.
I won't burn an American flag. I WILL fly it upside down!! If a SCrOTUS asshole can do it, then we all can, right??

BUT.......................... I know DAMN well when the huge camps they are building are all emptied of those they want to ship out then they will go for all those who's speech has offended them and made them feel sad.

Will we be "reeducated" or "exported" as a labor force for the third world and income as prisoners.

AMERIKKKA is GREAT!!

 

[Levorotatory]

Probably about a 90 for me. I mostly agree with SimonDoom.

I might define incitement to violence a little more broadly to encompass promotion of hatred that stops short of a direct call to arms but is still very likely to inspire followers to commit violent acts.

There is a need for a mechanism to counter organized, intentional spreading of misinformation that is very likely to cause significant harm, but I'm not sure that criminal law is well suited for that purpose.

Completely agree about obscenity. Any and all works of fiction and any and all recordings of consenting adults that don't cross the line to incitement of violence should be permitted. Some regulation to prevent young children from easily stumbling across sexual or violent material is good, but trying to stop 15 year olds from finding their way to porn sites is going too far. Teenagers developing unreasonable expectations regarding sex from watching porn is a lack of education problem, not lack of access restrictions problem.


While the original post was strictly about government imposed limits on freedom of expression, I also think there is a role for government in limiting the amount of control that some non-government entities are now able to exert over others. The most significant example is the payment processors bullying social media platforms into changing their terms of service to exclude otherwise legal content. That needs to be stopped.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

That begs the question, what constitutes cognizable harm? What rights do we have?

I don't believe being offended or having hurt feelings constitutes cognizable harm, or that you have any fundamental right to prevent others from hurting your feelings or offending you.

If "giving offense" is a legitimate limit to freedom of speech, then there is no such thing as freedom of speech, because anything disagreeable can potentially offend somebody.

Agree completely. Bering offended is a personal choice. I can’t intentionally offend you. You have to make that choice and that’s on you. That’s why, as a trans woman, I don’t do pronouns. Not only is it narcissistic, it denies you of your innate right of free speech. Call me whatever you want. Go ahead. I do not care. In fact, I’ll wager you can’t find something I haven’t been called at least twice, and you don’t even have to be polite about it.

By the way, short of the infamous fire in a crowded theater kind of thing, I believe you should be able to say anything you want as long as you’re not slandering somebody. 95+

 

[YDB95]

But we have seen people prosecuted for "hate crimes" for destroying certain symbols.

https://mynorthwest.com/crime_blotter/hate-crime-pride-flag/4072814

In which case the issue at hand is not flag burning per se.


I think I'd put myself around 90%.

 

[Lazaran]

How about this:

"Free" speech (amount of unmonitored / uncensored speech and the exemption of that speech from criminal or civil liability) should be inversely proportional to the amount of wealth, and/or power, and/or influence possessed by each individual or group of individuals.

The more wealth, and/or power, and/or influence possessed by an individual or group of individuals, the more that speech should be monitored (and potentially censored), and the more it shouldn’t r open to criminal or civil liability.

Just sayin'



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Rockymtnman]

Gen X. Mid 90’s. Slander and libel (anything that brings harm, financial or otherwise) based upon lies. Etc…. Any speech that causes harm, inciting violence, the old yelling “fire!” In a movie theater that isn’t actually on fire. Other than that say whatever you want. But don’t confuse free speech with freedom from consequences. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing that.

If you go around spouting Nazi shit and get fired from work, lose friends or family… well that’s on you. You have the right but everyone else has the right to judge you for the things you say.