Freedom of speech is an illusion?

This was brought up during a IM chat with a friend. If we have a freedom of speech, then logically, we should be able to say politically incorrect stuff, such as "black people are often from less developed culture".

We both do not believe in this, so I of course went and said "You can't say such." His reaction was "See?". He went on saying how we can only express our freedom of speech in "accepted matters", but other matters which are frowned upon we can't.

I tought about this and it rings bell.

I also like to ask, since this is what my parents keep telling me that any attempt to talk politics or religioin show a "extremism" and as such, you really should not talk about them.

Now tell me real life examples, where upon talking about any sensitive matter you are told to remain silent. Is freedom of speech really just "what we allow you to speak"? Or is it true freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech does not mean that there is no price to speaking.

Civil rights intersect with other rights.

You have the freedom to call me a leper in public, but I don't have to like it.

Freedom of Speech means that you cannot be thrown into jail for speaking your mind. It doesn't protect you from any other consequences that your speech may bring.

edited 17th Jul '11 1:18:04 PM by Alichains

^ Like being punched in the face afterwards. I have the freedom of speech to go around suddenly spouting the N-word but I'm probably gonna get shanked or slugged in the face for doing so.

But there ARE laws against punching people in the face.

edited 17th Jul '11 1:20:18 PM by silver2195

Might be better to say, you can say whatever you want, but everyone else is free to shun and isolate you.

Only if you're caught... and even then, jury nullification is worth attempting...

Besides, there are limits to speech to begin with... But, for the most part, the only limits people have on their ability to speak freely is the want/need to be liked by others.

edited 17th Jul '11 1:25:18 PM by Swish

Your markup is wrong. You can just copy/paste the URL or, if you want to link to the URL over a line of text, use this markup: [[URL text]].

On topic: Speaking your mind shouldn't be punished by law. Period. But that also means that others are equally free to be offended.

See the infamous case of Dr Laura Schlessinger for some of the consequences of speaking freely. She did exactly what Major Tom proposed to do, went on a rant repeatedly spouting the N-word, and got fired because of it. Her comeuppance. Then she bitched a whole lot about how her freedom of speech was being suppressed.

Freedom of speech means your right to utter it is guaranteed, not an agreeing audience.

^ Or freedom from consequences.

No freedom from anything but legal consequences, that is. You won't be arrested or fined, but people who previously voluntarily did business with you may now voluntarily stop doing business with you.

Looked at in terms of the Left and the Right, neither side really wants free speech. For instance, the Left opposes forcibly shutting up advocates of gay rights, but it wants to forcibly shut up advocates of forcibly shutting up advocates of gay rights. (If that hurts your head, don't worry, it hurts mine, too.) This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as free speech—it just means that even some of the people who claim to promote the concept are raping it.

There's no hypocrisy there, the principle is not using oppression on the innocent. People who choose to oppress have picked their standard.

^^I'm left wing, and I don't want to censor Westboro Baptist Church, though I do think there should be e.g. limits to how close to a funeral you can picket. The reason I don't want to censor them is, that you don't need to ridicule their beliefs, they do it themselves. Now, sure, I'm not really jumping to duty to protect the freedom of speech of those I strongly disagree with, but push comes a shove, I won't stand for censorship. Still, there's always ACLU and its ilk that will take the stance.

Of course, then there's what constitutes as freedom of speech, and what constitutes as criminal speech. I can't say "I'm going to kill you. Seriously, I have a gun in my car" to someone, gun or no gun, intent to murder or no intent, unless I'm joking and they clearly know it too. Where lies the line between "I will kill that guy", "that guy should be killed", "people like that guy should be killed" and "people like that guy are vermin. Vermin need to be killed"

Actually, leprosy is one of a few "loathsome diseases" that count as defamation (the others being venereal).

You can also be sued for defamation for allegations against the chastity of a woman, but not a man.

You are free to say whatever you want. You are also free to walk away.

Freedom of speech is a complete illusion, sure, hell look at slander laws.

But do we honestly need that kind of thing? Not really.

@Pykrete: Interesting; it's slander to accuse a virgin of being promiscuous, then? Pretty much every high school Libby in existence should be under arrest.

@OP: I agree with the thread. Freedom of speech is not, and should not be, freedom from social consequences - only legal ones. Yes, this means that you might, for example, be fired from your job for being a hard-left socialist or something, which sucks, but it also means there's a built-in check on hatespeech and mob agitating.

edited 17th Jul '11 9:15:26 PM by jejl

Well not quite that easy to be fair. I think for a person who isn't considered a public figure you have to be able to prove damages of some sort as a result...or something.

It depends on what you say and who is around to hear it, but you have a way better share of free speech in the USA than you do most anywhere else.