There is no such thing as Free Speech

[Aristotle]

I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech.

Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president.

Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We are the only Country I know of that allows the "level" of free speech we have. The only speech that is banned is that which can cause harm. Freedom does not mean acceptance. Socially there will always be dislikes and anger over certain things that are ostensibly free. That does not negate the fact they are free.

I do not believe in fate. I believe we are free to make our own choices. But let me specify something, I also believe that powers beyond man's can and does place agents into the Human mix. These agents are for all intents and purposes human. But they are predisposed by these powers to act in a certain manner. BUT even these agents being exposed to free will will eventually start acting on that free will.

As to free speech, every time we support a law that restricts rights we kill some speech. Every time we look the other way when the Government or society silences certain free speech, we kill some of our freedoms.

And lets be clear, hateful, ignorant, social unacceptable, politically incorrect speech is the very speech that we should, while possibly disagreeing with, defend.

 

[The Infidel]

And lets be clear, hateful, ignorant, social unacceptable, politically incorrect speech is the very speech that we should, while possibly disagreeing with, defend.

Free speech was designed for things most of us would disagree with.


The left is going to do all they can to squelch it too.

 

[dilloduck]

People who are wrong should be entitled to more free speech if it will keep em from going all postal on us.

 

[Aristotle]

We are the only Country I know of that allows the "level" of free speech we have. The only speech that is banned is that which can cause harm. Freedom does not mean acceptance. Socially there will always be dislikes and anger over certain things that are ostensibly free. That does not negate the fact they are free.

I do not believe in fate. I believe we are free to make our own choices. But let me specify something, I also believe that powers beyond man's can and does place agents into the Human mix. These agents are for all intents and purposes human. But they are predisposed by these powers to act in a certain manner. BUT even these agents being exposed to free will will eventually start acting on that free will.

As to free speech, every time we support a law that restricts rights we kill some speech. Every time we look the other way when the Government or society silences certain free speech, we kill some of our freedoms.

And lets be clear, hateful, ignorant, social unacceptable, politically incorrect speech is the very speech that we should, while possibly disagreeing with, defend.

I see what you're saying but don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we ought to not have free speech or speech which is considered venemous ought to not be legally protected, I'm merely saying that there is no such thing as absolute free speech.

The key word here is "absolute."

In America, we have decreed speech as "free" insofar as it does not violate societal standards of civility. Venemous speech may indeed fall under this umbrella but there is a fine line. I guess my point is, which should have been more clear is that we do not have absolute free speech.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Offensive Speech is the only type that needs protecting as no one is offended by Polite Speech are they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are the only Country I know of that allows the "level" of free speech we have. The only speech that is banned is that which can cause harm. Freedom does not mean acceptance. Socially there will always be dislikes and anger over certain things that are ostensibly free. That does not negate the fact they are free.

I do not believe in fate. I believe we are free to make our own choices. But let me specify something, I also believe that powers beyond man's can and does place agents into the Human mix. These agents are for all intents and purposes human. But they are predisposed by these powers to act in a certain manner. BUT even these agents being exposed to free will will eventually start acting on that free will.

As to free speech, every time we support a law that restricts rights we kill some speech. Every time we look the other way when the Government or society silences certain free speech, we kill some of our freedoms.

And lets be clear, hateful, ignorant, social unacceptable, politically incorrect speech is the very speech that we should, while possibly disagreeing with, defend.

I see what you're saying but don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we ought to not have free speech or speech which is considered venemous ought to not be legally protected, I'm merely saying that there is no such thing as absolute free speech.

The key word here is "absolute."

In America, we have decreed speech as "free" insofar as it does not violate societal standards of civility. Venemous speech may indeed fall under this umbrella but there is a fine line. I guess my point is, which should have been more clear is that we do not have absolute free speech.

Protected speech, then, rather than 'free,' speech that is protected form government restriction per settled case law.

Pornography is protected speech, obscenity not.

In general speech that does not manifest imminent lawlessness is protected, regardless how offensive or hateful.

“I hate blacks and want to see them all dead” is protected speech.

“Let’s meet at the coffee shop in half an hour and kill the black owner when he opens for business” is not protected speech.

 

[Aristotle]

We are the only Country I know of that allows the "level" of free speech we have. The only speech that is banned is that which can cause harm. Freedom does not mean acceptance. Socially there will always be dislikes and anger over certain things that are ostensibly free. That does not negate the fact they are free.

I do not believe in fate. I believe we are free to make our own choices. But let me specify something, I also believe that powers beyond man's can and does place agents into the Human mix. These agents are for all intents and purposes human. But they are predisposed by these powers to act in a certain manner. BUT even these agents being exposed to free will will eventually start acting on that free will.

As to free speech, every time we support a law that restricts rights we kill some speech. Every time we look the other way when the Government or society silences certain free speech, we kill some of our freedoms.

And lets be clear, hateful, ignorant, social unacceptable, politically incorrect speech is the very speech that we should, while possibly disagreeing with, defend.

I see what you're saying but don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we ought to not have free speech or speech which is considered venemous ought to not be legally protected, I'm merely saying that there is no such thing as absolute free speech.

The key word here is "absolute."

In America, we have decreed speech as "free" insofar as it does not violate societal standards of civility. Venemous speech may indeed fall under this umbrella but there is a fine line. I guess my point is, which should have been more clear is that we do not have absolute free speech.

Protected speech, then, rather than 'free,' speech that is protected form government restriction per settled case law.

Pornography is protected speech, obscenity not.

In general speech that does not manifest imminent lawlessness is protected, regardless how offensive or hateful.

“I hate blacks and want to see them all dead” is protected speech.

“Let’s meet at the coffee shop in half an hour and kill the black owner when he opens for business” is not protected speech.

Then in your opinion why the common statement "it's free speech?"
But I agree with your break down nonetheless.

 

[alan1]

I am free to swing my fist around also. My freedom to swing my fist ends right before my fist hits your nose.
Likewise, my freedom of speech ends when it physically harms you. By the way, slander can physically harm a person in an indirect way if it impacts them earning a living to support them-self.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded place could cause panic that results in harm to somebody as people try to escape the (false) danger.

 

[Mad Scientist]

EDIT: Quote WASN'T from Aristotle.

 

[Dreamy]

I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech.

Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president.

Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion

Not sure what you mean here. I have the freedom to speak, create art or music, in such a way that others might get pissed off. When you post of repercussions I am not exactly sure what you mean? That others might be angry with me and let me know or something more sinister?

Honestly I am sure all of us have at one time or another used speech that was met with anger, disagreement etc.... So what? How people react to speech is their issue and within their power to control even if they are crazy loons from the 4th century.

 

[regent]

Might want to read the first amendment it prohibits the governments.

 

[Aristotle]

I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech.

Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president.

Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion

Not sure what you mean here. I have the freedom to speak, create art or music, in such a way that others might get pissed off. When you post of repercussions I am not exactly sure what you mean? That others might be angry with me and let me know or something more sinister?

Honestly I am sure all of us have at one time or another used speech that was met with anger, disagreement etc.... So what? How people react to speech is their issue and within their power to control even if they are crazy loons from the 4th century.

Because if speech was absolutely free, people could make threats without legal repricussion.

Just because you are free to use slurs doesn't mean there isn't repricussion hence the term "protected speech." In the United States people have protected speech, not free speech. In the United States we use free speech too loosely without knowing the difference between protected speech and actual free speech. Absolute free speech whether is making a threat or using extreme profane language would warrant no repricussions at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are no absolute freedoms in our system. Every one is subject to restriction somewhere. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is the old rule.

 

[midcan5]

Free speech doesn't exist, never has, never will, doesn't matter what the argument for it is, libel someone and check out how free it really is? Instead free speech is a slogan, all uses of speech are arbitrated in society. But, but.... consider examples of speech that have (mostly) societal acceptance, porn and hate speech. Is the depiction of women as objects OK? Is the degradation of a person because of their ethnicity or religion OK? Is it OK to shout hate at military funerals because gay people exist? Tough topic. Stanley Fish has a book on the topic, see links.

"There is no such thing as free speech": an interview with Stanley Fish <P>

The Harm in Free Speech - NYTimes.com

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...utlaw-anti-islam-hate-film-2.html#post6093921

 

[Dreamy]

I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech.

Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president.

Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion

Not sure what you mean here. I have the freedom to speak, create art or music, in such a way that others might get pissed off. When you post of repercussions I am not exactly sure what you mean? That others might be angry with me and let me know or something more sinister?

Honestly I am sure all of us have at one time or another used speech that was met with anger, disagreement etc.... So what? How people react to speech is their issue and within their power to control even if they are crazy loons from the 4th century.

Because if speech was absolutely free, people could make threats without legal repricussion.

Just because you are free to use slurs doesn't mean there isn't repricussion hence the term "protected speech." In the United States people have protected speech, not free speech. In the United States we use free speech too loosely without knowing the difference between protected speech and actual free speech. Absolute free speech whether is making a threat or using extreme profane language would warrant no repricussions at all.

I understand the repercussions of making threats to another in any form. I understand that the government through the courts has regulated some freedoms in speech and expression. I was asking what you meant by social repercussions as stated here by you?

You posted:

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion

Specifically I am asking what you mean by social repercussions? That people might be offended by what others say is not exactly breaking news. Is that what you mean by we are not protected by "social repercussions"?

 

[Aristotle]

Not sure what you mean here. I have the freedom to speak, create art or music, in such a way that others might get pissed off. When you post of repercussions I am not exactly sure what you mean? That others might be angry with me and let me know or something more sinister?

Honestly I am sure all of us have at one time or another used speech that was met with anger, disagreement etc.... So what? How people react to speech is their issue and within their power to control even if they are crazy loons from the 4th century.

Because if speech was absolutely free, people could make threats without legal repricussion.

Just because you are free to use slurs doesn't mean there isn't repricussion hence the term "protected speech." In the United States people have protected speech, not free speech. In the United States we use free speech too loosely without knowing the difference between protected speech and actual free speech. Absolute free speech whether is making a threat or using extreme profane language would warrant no repricussions at all.

I understand the repercussions of making threats to another in any form. I understand that the government through the courts has regulated some freedoms in speech and expression. I was asking what you meant by social repercussions as stated here by you?

You posted:

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion

Specifically I am asking what you mean by social repercussions? That people might be offended by what others say is not exactly breaking news. Is that what you mean by we are not protected by "social repercussions"?

I define societal repricussion as an event or action which may potentially cause harm.

For example white folks are not free to walk in a Crip neighborhood and say the N-word because of what can happen. Fear or the potentiality of harm, is what restricts absolute speech. Sure by law you are protected but are you protected socially?

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

I see the OPs point in that free speech that we as Americans know it, is not true or "absolute" free speech. No civilized nation currently in existence or in generations past has ever had anything approaching "absolute" free speech. Modern day America is the closest we may possibly ever get. Put that on a spectrum between absolute free speech and utter lack of free speech and we're far closer to the former end than the latter. Are we the better for it? Well that's all about perspective.

 

[earthmuffin]

If you want to get that technical, freedom cannot exist in any fashion. No matter where we are or who we are with, we can never reach a point where we could freely do as we wish. There will always be repercussions, whether they come from government, friends or nature itself.

As far as the freedom to say whatever we'd like? I feel people give away certain liberties to be a part of a society. It's the admission you pay for civilization, so to speak.

 

[George Costanza]

I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech.

Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president.

Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.

This is an interesting post. When we talk about "Free Speech," it has to be, by definition, in the context of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. As such, it only implies freedom from governmental repurcussions. Obviously, social repurcussions are not limited in any way. Socially, a person can say anything he wants - anything. And those hearing him/her are equally free to think whatever they want about the author of the remarks. If social repurcussions become physical or violate the law, then action will be taken against the person breaking the law but, other than that, it's a free market on shooting your mouth off.

When I read some of the blather that appears on this board, I just shake my head.