Freedom of Speech, When Does it go To Far?

reply to post by kevinunknown


You're free to say what you want (with some legal limits). I'm free to say I don't like it or to flat out ignore you. Freedom of speech is not a license to be irresponsible or hateful.

"...to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content."

Government is not society.

[edit on 7/23/2010 by ~Lucidity]

The point is, we do have freedom of speech. But the point is too that this doesn't mean 1.) that people have the right to say anything they want

Um, that's exactly what freedom of speech means.

Just like the right you have to call them pricks if they're bigoted.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I am talking about absolute freedom of speech, “freedom of speech” that is regulated and controlled by laws is not “freedom of speech” it’s the government telling you what you can and can’t say. I support this, what i am asking however is where the line is or do you even want a line?

reply to post by kevinunknown

I think everyone draws a line in their own mind to one degree or another. I guess there's never going to be agreement about whether the lines should exist or what the lines are.

Well, it`s like what was going on a while back, and I believe it still is, about that church group who goes to the funerals of those soldiers who died over seas. They set at the gate entrance and chant, scream and shout that the soldier was a baby killer and what not. Well, for one, freedom of speech used that way, will only cause someone to get hurt or even worse. To me, that only interferes with the grieving process of those who lost their loved one. If those people do not like what the soldier did, then fine, write a story for the paper, or speak out in the town where the soldier was from, but at least let the family have their time of grief. To me, what the church group is doing, ruins freedom of speech for everyone else, and makes a mockery of it.

Maybe the line should be drawn, if common sense is not used in what was said.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by FiatLux]

The line is demonstrable injury. Slander is causes demonstrable injury. Fraud causes demonstrable injury. Offensive language does not. Real and genuine injury is the line. Nobody has the right to injure another unjustly. Making up lies about another person that could harm that persons livelihood, or security is slander. Making up lies about a business transaction, or other transaction can cause demonstrable harm, and this is fraud. Telling someone their mother wears army boots may be offensive, but there is no demonstrable injury. Screaming that all homosexuals will burn in hell may be offensive, but it causes no demonstrable injury. If speech is a crime, there must be a victim. A victim is someone who has been injured.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Yeah...that's about what I tried to say. But what about hurt feelings? There's a victim there but no crime, other than maybe bullying, which is that even technically a crime? It's a fine line.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Yeah...that's about what I tried to say. But what about hurt feelings? There's a victim there but no crime, other than maybe bullying, which is that even technically a crime? It's a fine line.

Psychological damage? It can be so, but as is with all crimes, there has to be evidence of a crime. In slander, if one person begins spreading a rumor that another person is a pedophile, and that person looses his job, gets divorced, and suffers all sorts of investigations because of this, and it is known who spread the rumor, but this rumor proves to be false, then there is demonstrable harm. Not just financial injury, but clear and present psychological damage can be shown. Still, the financial loss is easier to prove. It would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove psychological damage. The same goes for verbal bullying. If psychological damage can be proved, then there is a crime.

Im all for freedom of speech but hate speech and discrimination is something else. However I am not an iddiot and just because you make it illegal to say " burn all the "n-words" " does not fix the problem that people want to say it.

The best thing a person who gets their feelings hurt can do is just grow a thicker skin. As a woman in an almost all male field, I had to learn how to take the insults. Some don't care if they hurt your feelings and others want to hurt your feelings. There are very few people in my life who can hurt me with words.

By your definition of the so called hate crime, I say to you right now, You sir have offended me and I will send a letter to your so called legal system and have you arrested for such offence and I hope you spend the rest of your life in prison.



Now do you see that you have no freedom of speech just because I say you offended me you should go to prison.

In America I can say what I want and almost when I want to without fear of the language police coming to lock me up. That is real freedom. As a person who has served and who takes our Constitution very seriously I will tell you I might not like what you have to say but I will and have with my life defend your right to say what you like.

I hope that clears up what real freedom is and gives you something to think about as you spend what ever years you so called socialist government sentences you to for the offence you have placed upon me.

sorry posted it twice hit the button twice.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by drmeola]

With freedom comes responsibility. With actions comes consequence.

reply to post by darkelf

That's pretty true. Or ignore it. If everyone ignored the hate and racist speech, the hate speakers would eventually stop, because for the most part the reason they're saying it is for attention, and if they got none, they'd shrivel up and go away. Calling more attention to it or fighting back in kind, even if well-intentioned, just makes it worse and perpetuates it. And of course, as Jean said, the legal line is drawn at the physical or possibly psychological damage it can cause.

reply to post by drmeola


I was very careful not to single out any social group so as not to offend anybody in my thread that’s why i used the sheep pig analogy. What I have said is not a crime in the UK I am not preaching anything that could be perceived as a “hate crime”. If you are offended by what I have said it is because you disagree with me. I am rather anti-liberal (in the classical sense), the Constitution that you speak of is a liberal document, enshrined with in its tests are the natural rights of man.

If you truly believe you have freedom of speech go to an airport and have a casual conversation about bombs when you’re waiting. Stand in Times Square and declare that you advocate the actions of terrorists and that all US forces are criminals. Then we will see how far your freedom of speech will go. Any time the government says you cannot say something they are restricting your freedom of speech and therefore the very notion of freedom of speech is a lie as long as these laws exist. I support the suppression of freedom of speech to establish a more tolerant society.

Just for the record our government in the UK is not socialist they are liberal-conservative (or is it conservative-liberal), even our former government was not socialist enough for my licking.

Freedom of speech should have no limits. It should be free.

you are assuming that crime and hate crime can deter discrimination, which is only trying to punish wrong doers, rather than rewarding good activity. Instead, we keep freedom of speech, and make it a crime to infringe upon it, even a hate crime, and we say whatever is on our mind. If it offends a certain group, they have the freedom of speech (among many other rights) to take action, legally if possible. What is so offensive that you do not wish to ever hear it? The only problem is the excessive censorship already done to speech.

reply to post by filosophia


So what you are saying is that we should have a system of freedom of speech were by anybody can say whatever they want and if it offends another group that group can take them to court over it and do something about it. That is still restricting freedom of speech because the idea of freedom of speech says that you should be able to speak freely without the threat of persecution which is what this would (and probably dose) lead to freedom of speech being restricted.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by filosophia

 

So what you are saying is that we should have a system of freedom of speech were by anybody can say whatever they want and if it offends another group that group can take them to court over it and do something about it. That is still restricting freedom of speech because the idea of freedom of speech says that you should be able to speak freely without the threat of persecution which is what this would (and probably dose) lead to freedom of speech being restricted.

well that's the current system, I'm not saying it's perfect. I would hope for complete freedom, someone is always going to get offended, even when you don't mean it.

reply to post by filosophia


You don't have freedom of speech. Tell someone you're going to kill them, serious or not, see what happens. Tell a cop to F off, see what happens. Tell that big guy he's s dink, see what happens. If you think these are covered by free speech, like I said above be prepared for the consequences.

Philosophical notions, like freedom, are wonderful. Then some asshat comes along and uses that notion as a pick-axe on those that threaten his/her fragile sense of security. Suddenly, freedom doesn't mean freedom anymore. It means open-season.

It's like those kids who see no issue with pissing in the pool. "What's the problem? It's just water," they say. In a way of looking at urine, they're right, but we all know damn well that they've ruined that pool for everyone who doesn't want to swim in filth.

No one's fooled by hate speech parading around as free speech. We all know which idiots are pissing in the pool, even if they think they're clever with their semantics.