How strongly do you believe in freedom of speech?

[SimonDoom]

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.

I agree. That's why I confined the thread to discussion of what GOVERNMENT limits are appropriate. It keeps things simpler and clearer, although obviously all the other issues are important as well.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

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.

I agree.

 

[AG31]

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.

I think I agree with your statement pretty much completely. (We could make a thread over in AH about putting such adverbs together with such adjectives.)

I wish there were a way to make people at least confront facts when things like holocost denial or false winners of elections are promulgated.

 

[AG31]

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!

By "hurt" do you include hurt feelings?

 

[AG31]

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.

It's extremely tricky to codify what constitues "intent."

 

[SimonDoom]

It's extremely tricky to codify what constitues "intent."

And I'm not sure why it should matter as a LEGAL matter. It matters ethically. But why should something somebody says be criminalized because of the intent behind it?

 

[AG31]

in an undue manner.

Ah, there's the rub.

 

[ronde]

It's extremely tricky to codify what constitues "intent."

The problem with identifying intent is that the definition has been expanded to include nearly everything anyone says.

There is no question that screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater is done with the intent of injuring either the patrons or the theater management. There is no question that as recently happened, making a false report of an active shooter on a college campus was done with the intent to cause evacuation of the buildings and the expense of mustering special police force teams.

Where the definition gets cloudy is with words that some people label as designed to denigrate them or their opinions. Often these words are as i stated in an earlier post. They're just the last resort of someone who has run out of logical arguments. On social media, they're words used by someone who takes great pleasure in causing discomfort and distress to others.

If I say on my social media account that AG31 us a whore but you know you aren't, why would that cause you any distress? If I say you're fat and you truly are, any distress you feel was already there because you already know that. You've either decided that's how you want to be or you're already embarrassed by your condition.

The answer is not to ban those words. The answer is for people to grow up enough to take them for what they are. Taking them seriously only traps you in a bubble of your own discontent that will spiral over time. Stop reading articles that catch your eye because you know you're not going to like them. Stop talking to people on social media who's goal is to make you feel bad about yourself.

 

[Hel_Books]

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.

Something vaguely weird about reducing a very complex question to "on a scale from 1 to 100"!

 

[SimonDoom]

Something vaguely weird about reducing a very complex question to "on a scale from 1 to 100"!

It's just an attempt to get people give a ballpark estimate of where they stand.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Something vaguely weird about reducing a very complex question to "on a scale from 1 to 100"!

It's just an attempt to get people give a ballpark estimate of where they stand.

It's reification. There is no one thing here to measure. The number of issues, from restrictions on TV adverts to whether or not it's proper for Germany to ban Nazi symbols, is large and varied. Someone may give you a number 99 but that's not telling you anything at all about their stance on any particular issue.

 

[Erozetta]

It's reification. There is no one thing here to measure. The number of issues, from restrictions on TV adverts to whether or not it's proper for Germany to ban Nazi symbols, is large and varied. Someone may give you a number 99 but that's not telling you anything at all about their stance on any particular issue.

My 99 is pretty much:

Govt can say not to yell fire in a crowded room. (Inciting a dangerous situation among a crowd, basically.)

Anything else should be a civil/social matter and not something the government has a say in regarding criminality or penalties incurred.

 

[SimonDoom]

Something interesting I've noticed: this thread is on its third day, and nobody so far has assigned themselves a number below 90. That could mean a number of things:

1. Literotica participants believe very strongly in freedom of speech.

2. Those who believe in more restrictions on speech don't want to admit it.

3. Those who believe in more restrictions on speech don't mind saying so in words, but are much less likely to assign themselves a number for whatever reason.

4. People tend to exaggerate how much they support free speech. They believe in it as a general concept but are willing to accept various exceptions to it in practice.

5. The pool is self-selecting and skewed -- speech enthusiasts are more likely to read the thread and post to it.

There are probably other explanations.

 

[Lazaran]

My 99 is pretty much:

Govt can say not to yell fire in a crowded room. (Inciting a dangerous situation among a crowd, basically.)

Anything else should be a civil/social matter and not something the government has a say in regarding criminality or penalties incurred.

So should a President (or former President) be allowed to declare that an election was “stolen” and foment an insurrection???

 

[Erozetta]

So should a President (or former President) be allowed to declare that an election was “stolen” and foment an insurrection???

I do believe that would be considered inciting a dangerous situation among a crowd.

 

[Lazaran]

Something interesting I've noticed: this thread is on its third day, and nobody so far has assigned themselves a number below 90. That could mean a number of things:

1. Literotica participants believe very strongly in freedom of speech.

2. Those who believe in more restrictions on speech don't want to admit it.

3. Those who believe in more restrictions on speech don't mind saying so in words, but are much less likely to assign themselves a number for whatever reason.

4. People tend to exaggerate how much they support free speech. They believe in it as a general concept but are willing to accept various exceptions to it in practice.

5. The pool is self-selecting and skewed -- speech enthusiasts are more likely to read the thread and post to it.

There are probably other explanations.

Something vaguely weird about reducing a very complex question to "on a scale from 1 to 100"!

 

[Lazaran]

I do believe that would be considered inciting a dangerous situation among a crowd.

Yeah, I believe that ^ as well, and yet…

 

[Lazaran]

If the President is doing nothing more than expressing an opinion, I don't think it would be illegal.

But if the President, hypothetically speaking, gets on the phone with the secretary of state of a state and, spouting obvious falsehoods about the election, urges that secretary of state to "find votes" that would give him the election, and if he stands in front of a crowd at the same time the Senate is convening to count the votes of electors, and whips up a large crowd and puts pressure on his Vice President to refuse to do his Constitutional duty, and if the crowd immediately after the speech storms the Capitol, injuring many law enforcement officers, and if that same President sits in his White House for several hours doing absolutely nothing to quell the violent takeover of the Capitol building, then I think at some point it's no longer protected speech; it's an act; it's a violation of legal and constitutional duty. That's my take.

Yeah, I believe that ^ as well, and yet…

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

If the President is doing nothing more than expressing an opinion, I don't think it would be illegal.

But if the President, hypothetically speaking, gets on the phone with the secretary of state of a state and, spouting obvious falsehoods about the election, urges that secretary of state to "find votes" that would give him the election, and if he stands in front of a crowd at the same time the Senate is convening to count the votes of electors, and whips up a large crowd and puts pressure on his Vice President to refuse to do his Constitutional duty, and if the crowd immediately after the speech storms the Capitol, injuring many law enforcement officers, and if that same President sits in his White House for several hours doing absolutely nothing to quell the violent takeover of the Capitol building, then I think at some point it's no longer protected speech; it's an act; it's a violation of legal and constitutional duty. That's my take.

My take is that this discussion has veered dangerously from a nonpartisan discussion on the general concept of free speech, to a very biased commentary. I'd suggest we veer back before this gets ugly.. Just my two cents.

 

[RobDownSouth]

My take is that this discussion has veered dangerously from a nonpartisan discussion on the general concept of free speech, to a very biased commentary. I'd suggest we veer back before this gets ugly.. Just my two cents.

"very biased commentary"?
HERE?
On the POLITICAL BOARD?

Shirley you jest!

 

[SimonDoom]

My take is that this discussion has veered dangerously from a nonpartisan discussion on the general concept of free speech, to a very biased commentary. I'd suggest we veer back before this gets ugly.. Just my two cents.

Fair enough.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

"very biased commentary"?
HERE?
On the POLITICAL BOARD?

Shirley you jest!

Me, jest??? Not in this specific instance, but in general, absolutely.
And don't call me Shirley...

 

[Lazaran]

My take is that this discussion has veered dangerously from a nonpartisan discussion on the general concept of free speech, to a very biased commentary. I'd suggest we veer back before this gets ugly.. Just my two cents.

Please point to “the very biased commentary”…

We’ll wait…



Also:

This thread was evidently (obviously) moved to the PB because the topic is unarguably POLITICAL (especially in the age of DonOld & the MAGAt republicans).

Your comment was NOT worth your effort.



Hope that ^ helps.





We. Told. Them. So.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Please point to “the very biased commentary”…

We’ll wait…



Also:

This thread was evidently (obviously) moved to the PB because the topic is unarguably POLITICAL (especially in the age of DonOld & the MAGAt republicans).

Your comment was NOT worth your effort.



Hope that ^ helps.





We. Told. Them. So.

Not biting. Do you own research. I spent dozens of hours looking into information from all Kinds of sources. The bias is obvious unless you're vested in it being not.

 

[Lazaran]

Not biting. Do you own research. I spent dozens of hours looking into information from all Kinds of sources. The bias is obvious unless you're vested in it being not.

So no bias then.

Got it.



We. Told. Them. So.