NO to Free Speech

I would say having the freedom of speech, which is really the freedom of expression, would involve the right to remain silent at any topic and any time without being punished, for the act of remaining silent or failing to make a required speech.

In a place where you a free to speak or remain silent, being required to report anything is a violation of free speech. Your citizen status (while traveling), how many people live in your residence (in a census), annual income (for taxes), testimony against someone else accused of a crime in court, the contents of a suitcase (TSA/customs), or the nutritional content of a box of cereal you are selling, are all speech that governments around the world mandate people to make. Most people support at least one or more of those mandates, so most people don't believe in the freedom of speech.

In fact, few believe in the freedom of speech, probably less than a third of people when you probe them on every detail including consumer labeling on products which is the most popular instance where someone is required by law to speak up on a specific topic.

I think how people see free speech is sort of funny. Yes, you have the freedom to say or not say whatever you do or do not want to say. BUT you are not free of the consequences that follow.

Most people think they are.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

So to you the freedom of speech is like the freedom to commit armed robbery? You have the freedom to commit armed robbery but you are not free of the consequences?

There are plenty of people who are held in contempt of court for the action of not speaking when they were mandated to in the United States. There are also plenty of people in jail for not reporting income, not telling a police officer who they are. It seems to me that if you create artificial consequences like that, then it isn't really the freedom of speech.

I think you are mistaking natural consequences with political punishment. It is a political punishment to send someone to prison for the act of not speaking.

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

So to you the freedom of speech is like the freedom to commit armed robbery? You have the freedom to commit armed robbery but you are not free of the consequences?

There are plenty of people who are held in contempt of court for the action of not speaking when they were mandated to in the United States. There are also plenty of people in jail for not reporting income, not telling a police officer who they are. It seems to me that if you create artificial consequences like that, then it isn't really the freedom of speech.

I think you are mistaking natural consequences with political punishment. It is a political punishment to send someone to prison for the act of not speaking.

For every action or lack thereof, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You have the freedom to choose to say or do something, or not say or do something. What happens after is dependent on what you say or do. Take for example, someone who #-talks their boss on social media. They have that freedom. However, they can't say its going against their freedom of speech when they get fired. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. You are not free of the consequences.

Lyxdeslic is right, mostly.
You can say pretty much whatever you want but still have to face the consequences.
I don't think people understand that they can't speak freely just anywhere they want. Don't believe that? Try doing it in a court room and you will see. Go try preaching in a school. Not happening.
The constitution says you can speak your mind but it doesn't say anywhere or anytime. It also say the only time you don't have to talk is when you will incriminate yourself.

Freedom of speech covers you up to the point that you infringe on someone elses rights under the same laws that protect you.
If a man killed your spouse, and I was the only witness that could put him behind bars, would you want me to be required to testify, or are you still all about true free speech? This is why we have certain laws regarding freedom of speech that might seem to violate it, but in reality protect your rights as well as mine.
As was stated above...

a reply to: wayforward


First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

On June 17, 2013, SCOTUS ruled in "Salina vs Texas" that: "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question,". In other words, you must now specifically invoke your 5th amendment right to "remain silent" or your silence can and will be used against you in court

en.wikipedia.org...

You don't actually have the right to remain silent unless you invoke your right to remain silent by stating you are remaining silent.

The more you know.

a reply to: Klassified

There is a huge difference between consequences and punishment. If a Muslim asks me to confirm that there is only one God and the name of that God is Allah, and I refuse, should there be consequences for me? Do you think some speech should have consequences and other speech should not have consequences? Aren't you just using the word consequences as a code-word for punishment

Lets say that I'm in the US where people have the right to bear arms. Someone says... "Look you can have that firearm because it is your right, but I'm putting you in jail for a year because you have it." Hmmm, well it sounds like that isn't actually a right to own a firearm, is it?

No, someone who saw my spouse being killed should not be punished for remaining silent because it is their right to speak or not speak at all times without being punished for it. It would help greatly if that person did testify. Forcing someone to help another person is slavery. People are responsible for their own actions. However, they are not responsible for the actions of others. If I say "testify or go to jail" then I believe they should be forced against their will to help me.

There is a huge difference between choosing not to help, and harm. It "hurts" if someone does not testify to solve a crime but it doesn't directly damage me but rather it fails to help me. "You have the right to remain silent" is not a serious statement.

a reply to: wayforward

Allah is not a name of god just a translation or title of of the word god sorry had to clarify, but other than that I agree with the rest of your post and some speech regarding direct action could be taken with punishment such as a confession to the court ? But speech alone should not directly influence one to take action against anyone.

Our generation and the ones after will face zones dedicated to free speech that closely monitored. They think it's normal then they kids will to and boom there go the rights out the window

Of course 'Freedom of Speech' includes the 'Right to remain silent'


Now, this doesn't mean that when one person deems what's being said by another as something that shouldn't be said and that the person speaking should remain silent if IT, contradicts their point of view or agenda.

No, we won't go silently in the night.

a reply to: wayforward
Admittedly, I have put the cart before the horse in my first post. So I digress...
First, we need to understand that while most people put negative connotations to the word consequence. In and of itself, it is neither positive nor negative.
From Webster: "something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions."
So no matter what we do in life, there is a consequence. Good or bad. We'll relate this to your op momentarily.

True freedom, including freedom of speech, will be non-existent as long as you live in any group or society. The reason being, as a group we have agreed that certain rules and behavior will be observed for the good of the group, as well as the good of the individual. This agreement goes back as far as humans do. It has just been modified repeatedly per the group you or I belong to.

The whole idea of this agreement is to allow our species to propagate and flourish by working together toward a common goal collectively and individually. Of necessity then, we give up certain freedoms. And of necessity, we also agree there are consequences for abiding in the agreement, and not abiding in the agreement. In the former case, we reap the benefits(consequences) of the collective and the individual working together. In the latter, we reap the punishment(consequences) of breaking our agreement with the group.
So true freedom only comes when one is by themselves. As long as you belong to a group, whether that is society, or just your family, true freedom cannot be had. Only the amount of freedom the group has agreed on.

Hopefully, that better illustrates the point I was trying to make above.

Free speech zones should have been your first clue.

a reply to: Klassified

Very good clarification. I don't know of any agreement any US citizens have made to testify in trials. I know many people have sworn an oath to the constitution. I don't believe I have ever agreed to testify at anyone's trial.

A good agreement has a number of features. First, both parties have some bargaining power. I don't feel like I have any negotiating power with the United States in America. Second, both parties have signed a written contact. I have not signed a written contact where I was not under duress. Thirdly, a good contract has an opt out. If I own my own land, then how am I allowed to opt out of the contract with the United States, then proceed to live my live without the interference of that group on my land?

A bad agreement has at least some evidence that both parties have reached terms. Another feature of course is that one party gets something in exchange for something else of value. I don't know of even a bad agreement I've made with the United States to testify at any trials.

Also, an agreement where the terms change at any time is not actually enforceable in court. US laws change on a daily basis. How is it valid that one party in a contract can edit the terms retroactively? Maybe tomorrow the constitution will be amended to remove the entire bill of rights. Am I still bound to the United States laws in that case?