Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

This is in response to loli after he told us that if we were to discuss freedom of speech we must do it on a separate thread. As for my opinion on the subject matter it is that i believe in freedom of discussion and not freedom of speech.

The difference is that the latter gives you the right to not punished for saying something in a discussion, But it does not give the right to insult (throwing curse words in the air and using genuinely abusive language). Because using abusive language never promotes civil discussion and i'm pretty sure you can spot the difference between:

“Barrack obama is immoral because x,y and z”
And
“F****** OBAMA! I HATE HIS F****** S*** A** F***!”

Please feel free for discussion in this thread.

Doesn't freedom of speech cover more than just cursing. For something so simple this amendment also covers freedom of expression, which is why people are allowed to consume media that (for example) criticized 'Merica instead of showing it as infallible, or depicting history realistically, even if it isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

Freedom of speech is also likely the reason fan works exists, especialy since both it and the idea of derivative works predates copyright (see the various legends, Sherlock Homes adaptations, and Public Domain). Though in both a moral and legal gray area (That I'm sure Hollywood wants to push into the black)

Another issue that compounds this are the origins AND at cases subjectivity of "abusive language" Sure some worlds are considered objectively curse (strangely enough, most of these are sex terms), but there are those that try to claim that other more innocent words are just as bad (I'm sue you know who I'm talking about) and because of that, I;m convinced that you can't do much of anything to cull the swearing without trampling on the first amendment. (You could bowdlerize the dialogue in the media, not so much in reality).

As for why freedom of speech exists in the first place. Well In America's case, it along with the other amendments served as a failsafe for if the government turns totalitarian (If you are unable to protest, the authoritarians won).

TL;DR Freedom of Speech cover more than just debate, it also covers media and protests

True freedom of speech can't be achieved without anonymity. That's why message/imageboards are popular, because they break from that "fear of consequences" and allow to discuss/debate/shitpost/troll/laugh of everything without limits (kind of).

And even that has some form of limits. You're a mod, correct? Guaranteed you had to suspend or outright ban raucous or extreme conduct that goes outside the KYM rules. In this manner, the only absolute freedom of speech is when one is alone, not bound by the opinions or rules or morals of others that would lead to argument and dissent.
I guess freedom of speech may be achievable, but ABSOLUTE freedom of speech, that, I must say, is a myth.

I believe in freedom of speech and that it should be protected, but I don't believe that people should always be allowed to abuse that freedom. I'm talking here about psychological abuse, the things that can drive people to depression, insanity or even suicide.

People that believe that any and all forms of speech should be protected, no limits anywhere, clearly never considered the effects words can have on someone's mind.

KYM isn't an anonymous hub. And it has rules. Many rules.
So yeah.

@Morningstar

I have been thinking long and hard about the subjectivity of "abusive language". And I've devised a simple method to judge whether freedom of speech goes too far. It is by asking the question "does it promote civil discussion?".

Let's take some examples shall we! Does a presidential debate promote civil discussion? the likely answer is yes, because you have to factor how many times they curse, scream and insult (which really gets you nowhere). Does /pol/ promote civil discussion? Well from the stories I heard, I am guessing no (oh what a shock!).

Does the Amazing Atheist promote civil discussion?

I've seen a lot of his videos and he abuses freedom of speech to absurd levels.

What I mean by civil discussion is:
civil discussion = forums
flamewar = comments section =people flailing their arms, cursing ,screaming and making petty insults.

Pretty much this. Freedom of speech is valuable for a successful society, however like all good things, it can be abused in a bad way and there lies the issue.

While Freedom of speech covers many things, I do not believe it should cover "Freedom to hurt". Your right to your voice does not give you permission to lie, cheat, steal or assault. If people remember that then perhaps we wouldn't see abuse of free speech

I always did enjoy the quote: "Freedom of Speech protects the words, not the consequences."

Aside, the value of even the most unconstructive criticism might be taken into account. Be the effect of the criticism something of a stutter or a second thought. It might be a major driving factor to being slow and deliberate in adopting beliefs.

Informational social influence- influence resulting from one's willingness to accept others' opinions about reality.

I might theorize that one who might be so easily influenced into something possibly harmful would be rendered more "slow and deliberate" as they acquire dissenting opinions.

Abusive language in text seems quite fine to me. It is when that abusive language is mixed with blatant anger and a concern for one's own well-being might come in. In other words: threats go on the negatives to freedom of speech more often than not. But what might be categorized with them?

…the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
From the per curiam majority opinion of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1958)

Though I certainly don't always agree with the Supreme Court, as nobody could or should, I believe they got it right here. In order for someone to commit a punishable offense that only entails the words uttered from their lips or inscribed by their fingers, I believe they should have to be essentially saying that they are going to break the law and/or telling others to do so in a such a way that there's a good chance that they're going to follow through.

As for the example of harassing language, the reason that doesn't technically qualify as a restriction of free speech is because it's not the words themselves that are illegal, but the deliberately created situation in which they were made. For example, if you were to follow someone around 24/7 for weeks on end, always right behind their back, you'd obviously be breaking the law unless you had a really damn good reason for it. The crime and punishment would essentially be the same no matter if you stayed completely stoic and silent the whole time or were constantly hurtling angry insults. You can make a similar distinction for just about any instance of harassment.

Looking at the social activites of the population in my country, the majority often separate between freedom of speech and outright insulting. An example would be during the arrest of a guy who photoshopped the face of the president onto a porno scene as his way to mock him. Though it can be seen as an attack on freedom of speech, his arrest actually got positive responses from the populace as it is very disrespectful. Our concept of freedom of speech in the east is much more restrictive than the west.

Guys guys. Freedom of speech is the right to not get sent to prison for talking about something.

It doesn't mean you can say anything without consequences.

It doesn't mean you can say anything without people knowing you said it.

Anonymity is not requisite for true free speech. You can have whatever opinions you want, and you have a right to voice them, but that doesn't mean you have a right to not get any criticism for it. If you are racist, and you want to talk about it, no one should stop you, but damned if they shouldn't be allowed to criticize, mock, and marginalize you and your views. Freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech isn't limited either. Yes, people don't always have civil discussions. Does that mean we can curtail their right to hurl insults? No. The line is ambiguous between criticism and insult, so you cannot and should not try to enforce a "no flamewar" policy on a national level.

However, if you, say, are in charge of a forum, you can OBVIOUSLY enforce rules that everyone be civil. Why? Because you're not sending anyone to prison. You are not the government. You cannot curtail freedom of speech unless you can imprison someone.

You can say anything with Free Speech, but the people have a right as well to call you out on your bullshit if they see it.

Freedom of speech to me is the right to say what you want without being legally prosecuted.

I can say "Sex with sleeping people is okay" and I shouldn't be thrown in jail.
that however doesn't mean other people don't have the right to tell me I'm a fucking idiot.

You have the right to say any number of horrible things, as long as I have the right to tell you why you are wrong. Neither one of us should get thrown in jail for that.

And yes I do think everyone has the right to free speech. Even if I hate other people, sometimes even wanna murder them, but I don't have any right to silence them.