The Importance of Free Speech

Partially in order to curb the derail in the Gay Rights and America thread, I'm opening this thread to the discussion of free speech as an abstract notion, as well as the freedom of speech granted by the 1st and 14th amendments to the American Constitution (other countries welcome to discuss their freedoms of speech as well, I'm just not educated on them).

I'll start this discussion with free speech as an abstract. To me, it's far more important than many other rights, because it is the basis of how we discover the truth, how we interact with others, and how we affect change in a democratic republic.

I said before, we have two options when we disagree about policy - either we talk it out, or we kill each other over it. Any time we eliminate the first option (that is, suppress free speech) from our enemies, no matter how wrong we think they are, we tell them that the only way they can effect change is by force of arms.

That means that we have to let other people have their say, even when what they say makes us feel bad. I get to hear people say "Middle Easterns hate our freedoms" even though I'm Middle Eastern. Gays get to hear themselves be called unnatural abominations. Blacks can hear that they are monkeys. Women that they are a walking pair of genitals.

And all of that sucks. But free speech is so necessary as to make all of that combined a bad argument for overturning it.

All I have to add to that is that even if the government today supports your views, the next administration may not. The more willing you are to suppress opposing views when you happen to have the majority, the easier it will be for you to be suppressed should you someday lose that majority.

I say that, so long as your speech does not cause tangible harm (inciting violence, costing someone their job, etc.), that the government should not be able to do anything about it.

Which is pretty much what we have in place in law already. You're not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, because it can cause mass panic. Inciting to violence, however, can be a trickier thing to prove in a court of law, although we do have laws prohibiting it. Hate speech is also prohibited, but I think it's in very specific cases and requires a lot of proof.

Hate speech isn't actually prohibited in the US.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:25:57 PM by RTaco

In the US "hate speech" is not a crime, with the exception of words that incite an immediate breach of the peace (like if you go up to a black person and yell slurs until they punch you you can be found at fault). It can also make other crimes more severe in some cases (if you kill someone that's bad, kill them for being black might be worse).

But just saying hateful words is protected speech in the US.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:25:59 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

There is, however, a line in the sand here.

All people have the right to live in peace, without fear of having their liberties and rights withdrawn or attacked. Dehumanising people and stirring up feelings of hatred against people is in itself an act of social discrimination and an attack upon the right of a person to live in peace.

I'm sure we all agree that one person's rights end where another person's begin, and with that in mind I would argue that one doesn't have the right to publicly call a gay person an "unnatural abomination" or a black person "a monkey", because you don't have the right to relegate a person to being anything less than a fellow human being.

It is terrible when people verbally attack one another, but making it a crime sounds like a bad idea.

Bingo.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:33:25 PM by RTaco

That's simply not the case according to US law. While I think it is reprehensible for people to use that kind of language to refer to other people, I still defend their right to say it because frankly I don't trust the government to draw that line in the sand in the right place, nor do I trust successive administrations not to move it around to serve their agendas.

If everyone (even the idiots) is allowed to speak, sooner or later the truth will prevail. If voices that the people in power dislike are silenced, it is possible to go to very bad places.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:32:11 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

Even country with hate speech laws apply them very specifically. Canada applies hate speech laws with government employees, most especially teachers, as they are expected to be the "role models" of society. The authority applies hate speech laws much less frequently to private organisations or individuals, typically only doing so if someone can prove harm in court (like inciting violence). Broadcasters, however, can face the loss of licence if they a complaint about them succeeds in the CRTC (who control the broadcasting licences) because broadcasters need to abide by certain regulations (for instance, news organisations are not allowed to lie under any circumstance which is how Fox News got denied an operating licence in Canada).

Canada somehow managed to do so without turning into a totalitarian state.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:40:51 PM by Matues

I didn't say it was that way under US law. It's not the point I was trying to make.

Rights like Freedom of Expression do not come without responsibilities. It's the protection of a rational, civilized sharing of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Even if they happen to be ideas we disagree with. It isn't a licence to rally for hatred, discrimination, collective scapegoating and violence.

These things catch on before they die out, and people suffer on the back of that. The gay kid, for example, who gets bullied every day of his life because it's considered socially acceptable to openly dehumanize gay people deserves to be protected. He has the right to live in peace.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:43:38 PM by TheBatPencil

Dang, either there are mile-wide loopholes in that or your media is an entirely different thing than ours.

As regards government employees, that makes sense. Any organization has to set guidelines for its employees in how they fulfill their duties. As long as people are free to quit that's not an infringement on free speech. But I suppose I'm a bit more... liberal? conservative? jerk's advocate? I'm not sure what end of the spectrum currently supports greater freedom of association.

One thing about America's political process is that any and all policy-related views may be expressed. Nothing is off the table, and it's not seen as a violation of a group's rights to say that that group shouldn't have all of the rights that the law currently affords them; for example, the groups that campaign for a Defense of Marriage Amendment are saying that homosexuals in New York should not be allowed to marry. Or, to directly argue with Bat Pencil, to campaign for an amendment that explicitly defines black people as "not human," even if that sounds like something out of Space Station 13.

This isn't the case in all Western democracies; Germany, for example, is rather well-known for legally suppressing right-wing movements, and the only reason their current iteration of the Nazi party is allowed to operate is because so much of the party's leadership is composed of infiltrators from the government that prosecuting anyone for anything would be impossible.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:58:28 PM by Ramidel

@Bat Pencil: I guess, harsh though it sounds, I consider the protection of free speech to be more important than the protection of that unfortunate victim of bullying. My reason for doing so is that the latter problem can be solved from within the system: bullies can be condemned, victims can be taught to stand up for themselves, general kindness and civility can be promoted. On the other hand, if you take away freedom of speech, you destroy the very framework that makes it possible to address other issues.

Ok, bullies can be condemned.

But condemning them isn't always going to stop them. Not on its own - action taken to protect the victims of bullying will do far more than a verbal condemnation, no matter how strongly worded it may well be.

The people dehumanizing the gay kid, or immigrants, or people of the wrong religion or colour or political affiliation or whatever else - I would say that these people and our hypothetical bullies are one in the same. Ultimately their actions boil down the same thing.

Like bullies, these aren't people acting in a civilized, legitimate manner. Everyone is free to not like the gay kid because he's gay and is free to argue their position on that in a civil manner to their hearts content regardless of who disagrees with them. But they cannot cross the line into attacking his basic human rights and stirring up active hatred is doing exactly that.

The problem with bullying is that it's very rarely just verbally abusive. Just saying. And the whole "code of silence" or whatever where teens never say anything because they think the adults won't actually help them. And then extend that into their adult years in some cases. Bullying is about some serious issues that aren't solved by freedom of speech. I should stop here because that veers right off topic.

Frankly I think that teachers should go into the responsibility and consequences freedom of speech can have, but that would require that those deciding our curriculum actually give a fuck about our students learning critical thinking.

Bullying is a serious problem, but suppressing free speech A) won't stop it and B) opens the door to far worse problems. There are other ways to fight it, but as you said those are another topic's worth of discussion.

We might be missing the metaphor a bit, here.

Well, I think the idea behind prohibiting what can be classified as hate speech is that it would subsequently be punished more harshly when caught. More of a discouragement factor, which some people think help solve the larger problem. Pretty much the same thing behind prohibiting speech that incites to violence. I myself am skeptical about how well that tactic works.

Also, depending on the context, inciting to violence can be hate speech at the same time. *shrug*

In any event, while I do love the idea of freedom of speech, I know full well it can be abused and used to say some incredibly stupid shit, and sometimes I wonder if people at large are truly aware of that.

There was a metaphor?

edited 3rd Aug '12 9:19:51 PM by AceofSpades

What about things like, say, harassment, sexual harassment, and slander/defamation? Where do they stand as far as freedom of speech goes?

For example... I think making it illegal for people to, say, swear in the workplace is a bad idea. But does that mean that we have to allow someone to consistently harass somebody at work by directing unpleasant speech at them? Like, constantly calling them a slut, or a fag, or a whatever, in an environment where they can't escape.

All those things are punishable by law in most of the Western world. Provided you can prove in a court.

As I see it, speech can be restricted when it causes (or is likely to cause) tangible harm, like making a bomb threat or ruining someone's reputation with lies. However, I don't think hurting someone's feelings should be grounds for legal punishment. Free speech without the right to insult and offend other people is hollow; it's like Henry Ford telling a customer he was free to "have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black."

With workplace harrassment, people aren't really punished for what they say; they're punished for not going away. Of course, co-workers can't really avoid each other, but they can interact only in the ways their job requires; if someone expresses the desire to limit their interaction with a co-worker (whether it's "don't tease me", "don't flirt with me", or "don't talk with me about anything besides work"), then the co-worker needs to respect that. It's like how calling someone on the phone shouldn't be punished, even if you call to say mean, hateful things, but calling them every few seconds, tying up their phone lines, might warrant a punishment, even if you're just calling to shoot the breeze. It's not the content of your speech that's being censored, but the disruptive means you use to deliver it.

edited 3rd Aug '12 10:06:16 PM by RavenWilder

Well, the line between 'hurting someone's feelings' and 'causing somebody severe mental harm' is not as clear cut as we'd like to think it is.

I would have thought that harassing somebody into self-harm is pretty clearly the latter. But all you have to do is open up one of the many threads here on bullying or Facebook vandalism to see that many people don't see it that way. As far as they're concerned, it is the victim's fault that they were weak enough to allow themselves to be harassed.

See, I don't think there is a line between those things. If you communicate with someone, then you're going to influence them in some way, and that influence may be highly negative. If someone does not want exposure to your negative influence, they should just walk away from you (or tell you to walk away, depending on the circumstances). It's only if you continue forcing them to listen to you that outside authorities may need to come in.