How strongly do you believe in freedom of speech?

[SimonDoom]

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.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Probably a 90, and a late Gen Xr.

 

[Saint_Ann]

I'm not much of a talker.

 

[glamorilla]

I want complete and total control over everyone and everything.

At all times.

 

[SimonDoom]

I want complete and total control over everyone and everything.

At all times.

I admire intellectual honesty.

Sarcasm, too.

 

[Rotadom]

I admire intellectual honesty.

Sarcasm, too.

That's the first time "intellectual" and his name were in the same hemisphere.

 

[softbird]

If free speech hurts or brings harm to others, then it’s not free speech. Free speech should not impinge upon the rights of others. So, your initial stipulation is a tad simplistic, but that’s your prerogative!

 

[SimonDoom]

If free speech hurts or brings harm to others, then it’s not free speech. Free speech should not impinge upon the rights of others. So, your initial stipulation is a tad simplistic, but that’s your prerogative!

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.

 

[Hmm72]

Well said! End of discussion

 

[glamorilla]

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.

I'm big on intent. Nuance seems to be something we've lost. Purposefully overlooked.

It doesn't matter what you say if you don't understand the assignment.

 

[SimonDoom]

Well said! End of discussion

I hope not!

 

[XerXesXu]

Trump's opposed to 1A freedom of speech:

see at 2.57

Load your weapons and prepare to exercise your 2A rights.

 

[SimonDoom]

Trump's opposed to 1A freedom of speech:

see at 2.57

Load your weapons and prepare to exercise your 2A rights.

Freedom of speech has always been beset on all sides. Trump's another chapter in the assault.

I should have included "flag burning" on my list. That's a good catch. Edit: I added it. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Erozetta]

Probably a 99 for me.

But I do think such speech can and should be used against you should you commit a violent crime in support of any such hate speech as it can establish a pattern of specific hatred towards such individuals.

I can dislike certain speech and judge you harshly for using it or try to get you punished in a social way for using it, but the government shouldn't get a say in what anyone can say to another. You're free to say what you'd like, but you're not free from any penalities that may arise from the use of hate speech or lying about historical events.

There can be repercussions for bad actors using freedom of speech to intimidate or hurt others, just not directed from the government.


Millennial

 

[Kelliezgirl]

If free speech hurts or brings harm to others, then it’s not free speech. Free speech should not impinge upon the rights of others. So, your initial stipulation is a tad simplistic, but that’s your prerogative!

Why do you think you have a right to not be offended?

You are basically saying everyone gets a hecklers veto. I can deem myself offended by virtually anything you say and silence you.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Freedom of speech has always been beset on all sides. Trump's another chapter in the assault.

I should have included "flag burning" on my list. That's a good catch. Edit: I added it. Thanks for pointing that out.

As long as we can burn ANY flag. If burning an American flag is free speech so is burning a gay rights flag, a BLM flag...

 

[SimonDoom]

As long as we can burn ANY flag. If burning an American flag is free speech so is burning a gay rights flag, a BLM flag...

To my knowledge, there are no laws in the USA against burning flags generally. There were state laws that banned burning the American flag until those laws were declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment in Texas v Johnson over 30 years ago. Interestingly enough, the author of that opinion was Antonin Scalia, arguably the Supreme Court's most conservative justice at the time (although one could argue that Rehnquist was the most conservative, and he voted the other way in that case and wrote the dissenting opinion).

 

[UnexpectedLuggage]

I'd say somewhere in the 90's for me.

I believe freedom of speech is important, but I also believe a lot of people here in the U.S. have confused freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. They've also gotten it into their heads that freedom of speech applies to private corporations and social media, which the first amendment does not cover.

Lots of people say lots of utterly heinous things that I disagree with, but it is their constitutional right to not be persecuted by their government for saying those things. Do I wish they'd shut the fuck up with their ass backwards opinions? Sure, but I support their rights to have and share those ass backwards opinions. Plus, it makes it easier to spot the kind of shitheads to avoid and/or mock put here spouting neo-nazi and neo-confederate bullshit.

Freedom of speech is important, even if it means we'll hear shit that makes us angry or sick to our stomachs.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I want complete and total control over everyone and everything.

At all times.

YES, WE'VE NOTICED.

That seems to be your utopian ideal of how the American government should run people's lives, anyway.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd say somewhere in the 90's for me.

I believe freedom of speech is important, but I also believe a lot of people here in the U.S. have confused freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. They've also gotten it into their heads that freedom of speech applies to private corporations and social media, which the first amendment does not cover.

Lots of people say lots of utterly heinous things that I disagree with, but it is their constitutional right to not be persecuted by their government for saying those things. Do I wish they'd shut the fuck up with their ass backwards opinions? Sure, but I support their rights to have and share those ass backwards opinions. Plus, it makes it easier to spot the kind of shitheads to avoid and/or mock put here spouting neo-nazi and neo-confederate bullshit.

Freedom of speech is important, even if it means we'll hear shit that makes us angry or sick to our stomachs.

I think of this as the spirit of free speech. When Scalia went on the lecture circuit explaining and defending his flag-burning opinion, he'd say things like he personally wished he could put those "scruffy, bearded, sandal-wearing" flag burners in jail, but that the First Amendment prevented him from doing so.

 

[ronde]

I would rate myself as a 99 in favor of unfettered free speech. The only limits I would impose on speech is that which is a valid threat or an attempt to incite violence. In other words, you shouldn't be able to threaten someone's life or to advocate an overthrow of authority by violent means. Preach all you want about how bad I am. Just don't threaten to injure or to end my life or anyone else. Protest anything you want as long as it's peaceful even if it causes an inconvenience to others. Just don't tell a crowd that they need fists, rocks, frozen water bottles, or fireworks to make a difference. That used to be called treason when the word still meant something.

My answers to the common arguments against free speech are these.

1. The old saw that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. What I've seen over the last few decades or so is that more and more, people conflate things like embarrassment or shame or a difference of opinion as "hurt".

2. Anyone over the age of about 12 should be able to recognize personal attacks are just the last resort of a person who's run out of anything else to say. If they haven't, they weren't taught very well by their parents. Kids can be brutal and parents should know that from their own experience and teach their children accordingly. Instead, we have a generation of parents who consider it their moral duty to protect their child from anything that upsets them in the slightest way. Limiting speech isn't the way to cure hurt feelings. The cure is for people to believe in themselves.

3. Consenting adults should be free to do as they please as long as it's truly consensual and nobody gets injured. That includes pornography. As we continue to prove over and over, banning anything only drives it underground and raises the potential profits from illegal transactions in that particular thing. The US "banned" pornography for years, but it didn't disappear. It just came in the mail wrapped in the always "unlabeled and unidentifiable brown paper wrapper". It's far better to have it out in the open where everyone know where it is and can avoid it if they so choose. If you're concerned that your kids are watching or reading porn but you don't know for sure, you aren't being a very good parent.

4. As has always been the case with pure science, the open exchange of ideas is always the best way to arrive at the "truth", though that truth may change with more discussion. Limiting speech to what some self-appointed expert deems to be correct is a certain way to avoid ever reaching a consensus about what is "true".

I would probably be considered an early boomer.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

To my knowledge, there are no laws in the USA against burning flags generally. There were state laws that banned burning the American flag until those laws were declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment in Texas v Johnson over 30 years ago. Interestingly enough, the author of that opinion was Antonin Scalia, arguably the Supreme Court's most conservative justice at the time (although one could argue that Rehnquist was the most conservative, and he voted the other way in that case and wrote the dissenting opinion).

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

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

Just one of many.

Or how about doing a burnout on a crosswalk.

https://apnews.com/article/fl-state-wire-0f7e57557d70b4d801cd8a968b8f7cdd

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think of this as the spirit of free speech. When Scalia went on the lecture circuit explaining and defending his flag-burning opinion, he'd say things like he personally wished he could put those "scruffy, bearded, sandal-wearing" flag burners in jail, but that the First Amendment prevented him from doing so.

Unfortunately, for the most part the idea of "I hate what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it" is dying off.

I had a student in one of my college classes absolutely refuse to believe the ACLU defended the rights of the NAZIs to match in Skokie.
Because he knew good and well that he ACLU wasn't a NAZI organization, and only NAZIs would defend NAZIs ergo it couldn't have happened.
Our Prof almost lost his shit with the guy.
It was both funny and sad at the same time. But people seem less and less able to comprehend defending someone saying something don't personally agree with.

 

[SimonDoom]

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

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

Just one of many.

Or how about doing a burnout on a crosswalk.

https://apnews.com/article/fl-state-wire-0f7e57557d70b4d801cd8a968b8f7cdd

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.

 

[SimonDoom]

Unfortunately, for the most part the idea of "I hate what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it" is dying off.

I had a student in one of my college classes absolutely refuse to believe the ACLU defended the rights of the NAZIs to match in Skokie.
Because he knew good and well that he ACLU wasn't a NAZI organization, and only NAZIs would defend NAZIs ergo it couldn't have happened.
Our Prof almost lost his shit with the guy.
It was both funny and sad at the same time. But people seem less and less able to comprehend defending someone saying something don't personally agree with.

This is true, and it's worrisome.