Defending Freedom of Speech: How far would you go?

I'm a Bill of Rights nut: Bonafide free speech nut, privacy nut, gun nut... you do the math.

I support pretty much complete freedom of speech, to the point of considering copyright violations, obscene and disturbing speech, trade/national secrets leaks, or any kind of political speech (Including open calls to overthrow the government right now) to be speech that merits protection.

edited 23rd May '11 9:46:43 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

How about hate speeches towards stoners? Or people who support the government currently wholly and as it is?

edited 23rd May '11 10:40:34 AM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I'm on the fence, to be honest. It's pretty simple. Either we see threats/slander/etc. as not being "real" speech or we do. I don't think we can say that freedom of speech is an absolute while at the same time having laws against things such as threats/slander/FIRE, etc. Of course I don't think that freedoms and rights ARE absolute. I think they're a balance between individuals.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Even though I disagree with blind support for the government, and hatred towards stoners, I would rather argue against their viewpoint (and in doing so, potentially change it) than go crying to the government to shut up people I don't agree with.

Who builds troper pages?

Similarly to what you said, Freedom of Speech (tm) is no more an "absolute" right than anything else is. Rights do not exist out there in nature, as a fundamental law of the universe. Rights are simply those things we declare to be rights, in accordance with our cultural precepts, and are willing to fight to preserve. Even within a particular cultural framework, there are no absolute rights; everything has exceptions and edge cases. The only question is where those lie and who gets to decide.

This cultural hatred of "gub'mint", for one thing, strikes me as a bit peculiar, given that government is made up of people just like any other institution. If anything, I trust government to have my interests in mind quite a bit more than a big corporation.

Back to the point at hand, I think that actually fighting for freedom of speech is something that is a bit obsolete, considering that we're riding on the coattails of people who did exactly that and set up a system in which it was designed to flourish. It is, however, imperative that we exercise our political rights to vote in favor of representatives who will preserve those freedoms we cherish, whatever those may be.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I fear that any attempt to ban people from saying what they think might apply to what I say and think. After all, I've advocated violence in the past.

edited 23rd May '11 1:30:58 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

hashtagsarestupid

tips hat to Madrugada Glad to be of service, Foxy Lady.

Anyhow, I feel an important point should be raised...we're discussing the ability to speak one's mind (a.k.a. "Free Speech"). Sometimes, how one goes about something is as important or more than what one is attempting to do.

Example; here on TV Tropes, we have free speech. Don't believe me? Well, you're mistaken. We can disagree with the mods on points of politics, food, music, bubblegum flavors etc. as long as we do it politely...which applies to each and every troper present here.

The precedents for this are so numerous I shouldn't have to bother citing them, but I'll use Madrugada as an example. She participates in the OTC discussions; while she's posting as a troper, we're free to say "I disagree, Maddie...you are mistaken because <blah blah blah reasons, arguments, sources, etc.> say so". But when we see "Mod hat ON" in a post (and we all have), we have to obey. She is speaking ex cathedra and we must adhere to her decrees or suffer consequences.

Mods don't do this to win arguments; they do it to enforce rules that apply to everyone...including them. These rules cover the how, when, and where an opinion may be expressed...not what you're saying or why you're saying it.

That's free speech, people. And its the only fair way to go about it. Denying anyone their right to speak based off what they want to say (no matter how stupid, hateful or erroneous) is not free speech.

We must accept two responsibilities if we wish to keep free speech intact, and these apply to everyone who wishes to see it continue:

• 1: We must adhere to guidelines regarding the method by which we express ourselves and the time or place we choose to do so, trusting that these guidelines apply to everyone equally.
• 2: We must at least tolerate the viewpoints of those espousing/expressing viewpoints we disagree with.

This can be hard. Everyone on here dreams of the day the WBC finally gets shut the hell up, and I'm sure I'd be hard pressed to find many supporters of Stormfront. But we must hold our noses and choke them down.

The freedoms we are protecting are most definitely our own.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

One Internet for you.

hashtagsarestupid

One thing to remember is that people having right to say whatever they want to say does not mean that

• Other people have to listen
• Other people have to agree
• Other people can't use their freedom of speech right back to you
• There will be no consequences for what is said

The bit about consequences might require some explanation. It is easy to see it as "Sure, you can speak your mind, but you've going to be prosecuted/fined/sent in jail if you do so", which would make any claims about freedom of speech somewhat disingenuous. But that is not what consequences mean. Unless the person is going to claim that everything they say is not what they really mean and has no basis in reality (which would make talking rather meaningless), people do get information about the speaker based on what they say. And of course they are free to act upon this information.

Say, a person cheated on exams, never got caught, but later told about it loud enough for the college personnel to hear, and was promptly expelled. Was such person expelled for saying things? Of course no.

It can be the same thing with opinions. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that every opinion has to be tolerated. That would be a completely different topic. If someone was to speak certain things in my house, I would kick them out - but that is not an attack against their right to speak. I wouldn't do it because they dared to speak, but because their own words mark them as someone I do not want to associate with. Were I to learn about it in any other way, not through their words - the result would be the same.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

DS, what you saud hardly fits the definition of "free speeech". Thumps are a glaring counterargument; as are bans and thread-pulls.

That said, since it's a domain run by private persons, they have the freedom to choose who and what not to tolerate.Here there's permitted and unpermitted speech, but I wouldn't call it "free" in the sense being discussed here.

edited 24th May '11 12:41:29 AM by MRDA1981

Enjoy the Inferno...

@MRDA: It was an example, and anyway I call "foul" on your play; the only time I've seen mods wander in and start thumping posts is when people get either A: off topic or B: into a flame war. I've never seen a mod thump a post because they didn't agree with the content.

And the rules are clearly posted, we all read them and agreed to abide before joining. Your example plays far better in my argument than it does in yours.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

^^ Thumps and bannings come under Beholderess's point four: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. But as you yourself said, it's a private space, as far as a right to freedom of speech goes. The right is (at least in the US, as defined by the Constitution) 'The government shall make no law abridging Freedom of speech'. It doesn't address privately owned spaces.

One point that a blogger made that made me look at 'Freedom of speech" differently was this: When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they included freedom of speech as a fundamental right. But they were also living in a time when saying the wrong thing to the wrong person or group of people could land you in a duel. And honest-to-god 'Pistols for two, breakfast for one', d-e-d spells 'dead', duel over it. And everyone was aware of that fact. The was no confusion over whether or not speech could have consequences that weren't handed down by the government.

edited 23rd May '11 8:52:09 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Very true. Something I wish would come back, but I think that's a topic for another thread. I'll leave it at "Good point, Maddie".

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Well, if by "defend" you mean something along the lines of activism, armed conflict, or some other course of action which requires me to personally go out into meatspace and inconvenience myself, then I'd say that in practice, I probably wouldn't defend anybody in that context unless I had a personal stake in it. That's not a reflection of my position on free speech specifically; it's a reflection of my position regarding other people in general. Among the rights of other people, freedom of speech is the one that's most important to me... but my personal comfort is more important to me than the rights of other people.

In the context of arguments, though, I would and have defended the right to free speech of the WBC, pedophilia advocates, holocaust deniers, and other assorted extremists and bigots. In principle, I'm opposed to the very existence of "hate speech" laws and similar anti-free-speech measures.

Yep, freedom of speech does not mean there is a duty to provide a media.

If however the state (or anyone else for that matter) tried to censor my own website or printing house that would be conflicting with my freedom of speech.

edited 23rd May '11 11:48:29 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I'd defend free speech all the way out to shouting Fire! in a crowded theater.

edited 24th May '11 12:07:50 AM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Suit yourself, just stand away from the exit...

hashtagsarestupid

Well I'm going into the Army come September, so I guess I'm willing to give my life to defend free speech.

In the case of the WBC, I hate those fuckers and sincerely wish ill upon them, but I'll defend their right to say their spiel. If anything to seize the moral high ground from 'em.

The WBC would have trouble taking the moral high ground from Hitler

hashtagsarestupid

Eh, last I checked they weren't murdering masses of people yet so I'll give them that much. Never the less, Hitler would be allowed to say what he wants about Jews if he lived the United States and in several other places. He just wouldn't be allowed to hurt said people.

edited 24th May '11 1:09:32 AM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

"Your example plays far better in my argument than it does in yours."

Perhaps it does in the grand scheme (TV Tropes as one part of the speech network); I was thinking more 'in-universe'.

Enjoy the Inferno...

@OP: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

It doesn't matter who they are, it doesn't matter what they're saying, all that matters is that they're saying something.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Not if he wanted to retain any credibility at all in any public role. The ADL can pretty much kill any politician or businessman's career.

But that's not the government's problem, it's just an example of the "consequences" mentioned above.

edited 24th May '11 6:06:40 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

Edit, nevermind.

edited 24th May '11 6:20:20 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...