Is Free Speech a Hindrance?

the misconception is that free speech is without consequences. There are people wont dont comprehend the fact that you may be able to say whatever the fuck you want, but that dosesn't mean you cant bear consequences for it.

So for example: Rush Limbaugh, a man known for his love of illegally gotten viagra, recently refered to a college student promoting womens health as a 'slut'.

he is free to say whatever he wants to say...

... and all those advertisers and radio stations who are dropping him are protected in their rights of doing so. This is the consequences of him making unsubstaniated attacks on her. he can make them, but people are not required to bow down and celebrate him for doing so.

There is another line, however, when it becomes no longer free speech. that line is defemation/slander. if your words can be shown to cause irreperable harm, you can be held responcible for them, and liable for them.

This is not easy to prove, but the line can be drawn.

 

In my opinion, people should be able to say anything up to the point of advocating harm against someone/a group. I think freedom of speech is an absolutely fundamental right.

 

There's a difference between 'hate speech' and 'free speech'. And with the increasing growth of political correctness and 'concerned mother's groups' (as I like to call them - the ones you find on morning talk shows discussing petty things and promoting the extreme nanny state), 'free speech' is coming under increasing threat. I believe unless the statement directly threatens or majorly attacks a certain group, there is no issue with it. I'm talking about extreme stuff, not just the 'fags shouldn't marry'. That's petty. Yes, it can offend people, suck it up. People are entitled to an opinion, just because you don't like it doesn't give you the right to censor it.

 

Speech should be completely free in a political sense. The government should not have any say in what a person can or cannot say, though the people whom it may offend are also free to make a point to the offender.

If someone honestly calls me a fag just to be a jerk, I may very well beat the crap out of him. Free speech does not mean the same thing as "get away with anything" speech.
Granted, it's a political problem after you beat someone, I know... it's a big annoying ball of silliness, but whatever.

 

I am opposed to hate speech laws not because I have any liking for bigoted and hateful comments, but because I don't trust the government with the power to restrict speech in that manner. I have no confidence that saying "Christianity is wrong" wouldn't be deemed hate speech in this country. The right to swing your fist ends at my nose, is my view when it comes to speech. Unless you're seriously defaming someone or advocating for their harm, I think it should be legal.

 

Yeah, I do think they say ridiculous things. But for starters, just preventing their speech (or fining it, which is the same thing as far as I'm concerned) doesn't actually make the hate go away. I also think it would be ridiculous for me to say that they can't say them or should be fined for saying them just because I disagree with them.

Because for this type of hate speech to be against the law, this particular group would be singled out from the rest and told you're not allowed to talk about what you wanna say, but everyone who disagrees with you can.

But then if they wanna go content neutral, they could stop me from saying the things I wanna say. Youtube's already changed its policy on hate speech so that the most simple thing could be removed if any person (no matter how unwarranted) might find it offensive. I don't want my government preventing my speech because people take offense for no reason.

I know saying that all gays should die and go to hell is a perfectly reasonable thing to take offense to. But then how is it determined what is offensive and who determines it. The most sensible thing would seem to be what the majority finds offensive because we don't want to make a big stink over every little thing.

But when we do that, the minority is shut out and they're the ones who actually need protection the most. If unpopular viewpoints were all shut out, gay people would still not be accepted. Homosexuality would be considered offensive. But we have the law in place to protect the minority.

We can't just shut out viewpoints we don't like because there will always be some that are actually good (no slavery, marriage equality, etc.) And we can't shut out offensive speech in a content neutral manner because then no one's speech is safe.

 

I think that everyone should say as they please, it's a free speech, what's the use of the word 'free' if you are to censor their hateful statements. It's their right given/blessed by the government as human beings. What's not part of their right is to oppress people and deprive them of their rights as human beings who inhabit the Earth.

'Free' Speech is like a debate, the person whom the hateful statements was addressed to may or may not stand to make a point and plot a hateful statement against the speaker.

But the right of having a 'free' speech should be used with precaution 'cause you might wake up one day being the everyone's enemy;

 

To me, there's nothing more vital than preserving the "marketplace of ideas" that the Supreme Court wrote of, even if those ideas happen to be utterly abhorrent. You can't trust a legislator not to slap "hate speech" on something that's not actually hate speech.

Fifty years ago, pro-gay literature could have been construed as hate speech, as well as literature promoting interracial marriage, all on the basis that they are directly contrary to people's religious beliefs.

 

There are already limits to "free speech". You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, things like that... So uh, free speech is already not exactly free.

In my opinion, there should be a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech; people should be free to say as they please, but people who are hurt be particularly inflammatory speech should be able to complain about it and actually have it GET somewhere. For example, if people sue the WBC and try to make it so they can't picket funerals anymore, then they should be HEARD and not brushed away with "oh well that's their freedom of speech". Obviously it IS a problem, and it should be treated as a problem.

Besides, there is also a difference between speech (IMO) and actively doing things to hurt people, like the WBC. There's a difference between screaming hate filled bullshit on your own turf and screaming it at people who are trying to attend a funeral for a loved one. That to me is disorderly conduct, and should be something those slimeballs should be arrested over.

 

free speech technicaly is free,just be prepared for the consequences if its full of hate,prejudice, discrimination or whatever.

am personaly more bothered by the fact that abuse towards a particular group can be taken as being more serious than another particular group,even if both groups are protected status and minorities.
and it shows how brainwashed society is by others,to use an example-on several forums have been on and one currently on,users will react with hate and strong morals towards anyone who uses undirected xenephobic abuse words but they dont have a thought about regulary using autism,learning disability,downs and dyslexia as actual directed abusive terms,and also the usual 'retarded' directed at people who have done stupid things,that people with intelectual disability have got far more class and sense in never doing.
crip/cripple is another common one,and have ocasionaly seen epilepsy used in a abusive way.
it just says a lot about peoples inner prejudices if they have no morrals against directly abusing and mocking different groups online whilst restraining themselves against others.

am actualy one of the worst for making fun of self and using humour in disability,to the point had been told a few years ago if wasnt for the level of autism being a barrier woud be put on at the comedy clubs frogtastic night [a standup night for people with learning disability].

however....when it comes to people who have these hypocritical morals of protection,or hate, ignorance,jealousy,prejudice,and elitism towards us because they begrudge us getting disability allowances and support for our needs...have got a problem with that,will treat them with as much respect as they treat us-aka none,usualy wil just stick em on ignore.
forums are public bases governed by many rules,blogs are private-they need to get a blog if they want to spout offense.