There is no such thing as Free Speech

[PaulS1950]

All rights carry a responsibility. Your rights end where the right of another is affected.
Our right to free speach comes with this responsibility; it cannot be used to harm another in character or conscience or by initiating violent acts. It was formed that we might discuss issues that could better the place of man(kind) or bring thoughts to inventions or other physical representations of that (those) thought (s).

Your right to free movement ends when another feels threatened by your movement. Swinging your arms may be something you "just do" but if another feels threatened then he (or she) has every right to defend themself against you.

We have a right to defend ourselves but not after starting an altercation with words. If you use words to start a fighth then you are the one who threw the first "punch".

The only absolute is that there are no "absolutes" within the logical world.

 

[Aristotle]

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.

That technicality is right. We are not free.

 

[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.

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.

Now your getting it....(Thumbs Up)

 

[Wroberson]

Everything we say can and will be used against us in a court of law.
Make a physical threat and you could lose your kids.
I try to use as little profanity as possible. I'm pretty good at it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm working on this free will thing. I'm looking to see how the plans I've made were driven by some other force than will. Vegas is easy. I was driven to make this plan to win money betting sports. Something I can't do in Illinois. To bet sports one must go to Vegas, and therefore, that is the driving force. You can't do it from here.

Yellowstone for New Year's. I've already been there for Christmas. The reason I am going back is to see a different park of the Park in winter. Maybe the driving force is to see something new, something unseen. I would also like to see Old Faithful erupt at midnight. Yes there is a NYE Party, but that's something I would most likely want to avoid. A 3rd trip is required to have seen all the major ares in winter. Includes a snowmobile ride along the lake.

So the question is, what drives my desire if it's not part of my internal structure?
Could this be a long lost instinct to keep moving? Do I tend to migrate?

 

[Politico]

I have all the free speech I want. Never have been prevented from saying anything.

 

[Aristotle]

I have all the free speech I want. Never have been prevented from saying anything.

I doubt this statement very much....

If this is true, walk into a police station and tell every cop you will kill every single one of them.

 

[Politico]

Yeah threatening others is not free speech. Another fail.

 

[Saigon]

The left is going to do all they can to squelch it too[/SIZE].[/FONT]

As a general rule, the left wing has probably been more tolerant of free speech than the right wing because the left promotes the rights of minorities.

While tyrannical regimes from Communist to Fascist have all "squelched" free speech, the harshest punishments have generally been from right wing regimes seeking to impose law and order, particularly over minorities.

Think of Argentina's Dirty Generals, Pinochet, Suharto, Rios Montte in Guatemala or of course Hitler, Antonescu and Franco and what one sees are natural extensions of extreme right wing thinking.

 

[editec]

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.

You're right.

Our FREE SPEECH right is not without limits.

And that is, in principle, at least, a rather good thing, I think.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

That technicality is right. We are not free.

I would actually say it in the exact opposite manner. You are looking at things in a backward manner, mainly that the repercussions of your actions are defining your freedom rather than the actions themselves. This is a rather silly way of seeing it as the freedom refers to the actions themselves. Technically, you are completely free. You can say anything you want. There is nothing stopping you whatsoever. I can get up and go over to my neighbor’s house and burn it down. I am technically free to do this because there is nothing that will actually stop me. Note: this is in relation to the quote, NOT the legal freedoms we enjoy that the OP was discussing.

I just feel the repercussions of my own actions afterward. That is not a matter of free or not free, that is a matter of existence. You are free to interact with the world, just don’t expect that it won’t interact back.

As far as the OP, you left out something that you later added: the word ABSOLUTE. You do, indeed, have a freedom of speech. Your argument is rather false. What you do not have is any ABSOLUTE rights. You can’t have any absolute rights if you are to coexist with others. That does not mean that you don’t have the right to free speech. It simply means that you cannot use that right to endanger or remove any of the rights I also enjoy.

 

[Saigon]

FA-Q2 -

Although I agree with your points, would you also accept that laws dealing with intent mean that you are not, in fact, free to commit murder if the police are aware of your plans in advance?

 

[FA_Q2]

In a way yes. I don’t really see that as having an impact within the current discussion though. We are talking about speech after all. In my example, if the police were there to stop me from burning down my neighbor’s home then they would have, in fact, removed my freedom to do so. I just wanted to get people here looking at this from the other direction as I think it is silly to say we are not free to do something that we are quite capable of doing no matter how not-free you think you are

 

[Aristotle]

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.

That technicality is right. We are not free.

I would actually say it in the exact opposite manner. You are looking at things in a backward manner, mainly that the repercussions of your actions are defining your freedom rather than the actions themselves. This is a rather silly way of seeing it as the freedom refers to the actions themselves. Technically, you are completely free. You can say anything you want. There is nothing stopping you whatsoever. I can get up and go over to my neighbor’s house and burn it down. I am technically free to do this because there is nothing that will actually stop me. Note: this is in relation to the quote, NOT the legal freedoms we enjoy that the OP was discussing.

I just feel the repercussions of my own actions afterward. That is not a matter of free or not free, that is a matter of existence. You are free to interact with the world, just don’t expect that it won’t interact back.

As far as the OP, you left out something that you later added: the word ABSOLUTE. You do, indeed, have a freedom of speech. Your argument is rather false. What you do not have is any ABSOLUTE rights. You can’t have any absolute rights if you are to coexist with others. That does not mean that you don’t have the right to free speech. It simply means that you cannot use that right to endanger or remove any of the rights I also enjoy.

I will have to post my Reductio Ad Absurdum later.

 

[FA_Q2]

I will have to post my Reductio Ad Absurdum later.

Still waiting.

 

[Aristotle]

I will have to post my Reductio Ad Absurdum later.

Still waiting.

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

 

[FA_Q2]

I will have to post my Reductio Ad Absurdum later.

Still waiting.

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

That is a rather warped view of freedom. You are essentially stating that because I choose to not do something (the reason is meaningless) that I am not free to do it. That is incorrect no matter how you want to slice it.

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this acedentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt. That does not mean that I lack the freedom to do so. That freedom is there, I simply chose not to exercise it because the consequences are not something I wish to happen.

I have to ask here, and I am not trying to be an ass, but do you even understand what freedom even means? Again, we are talking in the ability not the legal protection because you have not even addressed that yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Are we talking about free speech or free will here?

You have the definition of free speech wrong. Free speech is the idea that I can say anything I want to about the government, and the people in it, and the government does not have the authority to stop me from saying it. Nothing in there about repercussion at all.

By the way, that meme about fire in a theater is not only inaccurate, it has nothing to do with free speech. I suppose the reason you put this in the DNZ was so no one could tell you how idiotic it is to make that argument and hurt your feelings, but it is really stupid to assume I cant do that. No one that understands anything about free speech ever gets that quote wrong, and they also understand that falsely yelling fire in a theater is no more about speaking up against government tyranny than me yelling my name in an empty park does.

Given that government and religion are often linked, free speech also gives me the right to say anything I want about any religion, especially a state sponsored one, and denies the religion, or the state, the power to shut me up. Now that we nave eliminated the strawman argument that speech is supposed to be free from repercussion perhaps we can get to the real issue here, which is how you want to use your misrepresentation of what free speech is about to restrict it. All I can say is, you aren't half as clever as you think you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

You are the reason we need to restrict the government.

 

[Aristotle]

Still waiting.

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

That is a rather warped view of freedom. You are essentially stating that because I choose to not do something (the reason is meaningless) that I am not free to do it. That is incorrect no matter how you want to slice it.

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this acedentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt. That does not mean that I lack the freedom to do so. That freedom is there, I simply chose not to exercise it because the consequences are not something I wish to happen.

I have to ask here, and I am not trying to be an ass, but do you even understand what freedom even means? Again, we are talking in the ability not the legal protection because you have not even addressed that yet.

No you re not because fear of consequence restrains you from acting or society has indoctrinated you with the thought that acting abruptly is irrational. Your argument has failed. If you truly believe in freedom, do as I say, walk in that police station.

You won't because for one, you won't listen to a stranger and two, you are afraid of the consequences of irrational behavior. You are restricted by something.

As far as your question yes I know what freedom is and not to be an ass but I highlighted in my earlier posts that people should stop saying they have freedom of speech and indicate they have protected speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The left is going to do all they can to squelch it too[/SIZE].[/FONT]

As a general rule, the left wing has probably been more tolerant of free speech than the right wing because the left promotes the rights of minorities.

While tyrannical regimes from Communist to Fascist have all "squelched" free speech, the harshest punishments have generally been from right wing regimes seeking to impose law and order, particularly over minorities.

Think of Argentina's Dirty Generals, Pinochet, Suharto, Rios Montte in Guatemala or of course Hitler, Antonescu and Franco and what one sees are natural extensions of extreme right wing thinking.

Historically, progressives have championed restrictions on free speech by calling for "civility" in debate and "political correctness" in speech. All the way back in 1991 none other than Barrack Obama, the future president of the United States, shrugged off concerns over Harvard campus speech codes that were being used to silence criticism.

By the way, you have no idea what right wing is if you think that list is the right wing.