Freedom of Speech

Collin

What do you consider "speech". Should everything be allowed or should there be certain limitations to free speech?

Strangest Tribe

Collin wrote:

What do you consider "speech". Should everything be allowed or should there be certain limitations to free speech?

Opening a can of worms?

Nevermind

It wouldnt be free speech if there was limitations.

Dylan Stone

Nevermind wrote:

It wouldnt be free speech if there was limitations.

But there are.

i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater....

meistereder

Nevermind wrote:

It wouldnt be free speech if there was limitations.

Then there is no such thing as free speech. Because we have many, many limitations to freedom of speech. Almost too many to list.

Nevermind

meistereder wrote:

Then there is no such thing as free speech. Because we have many, many limitations to freedom of speech. Almost too many to list.

Then we must take the power back.

meistereder

Nevermind wrote:

Then we must take the power back.

Yeah, well... What I am talking about has nothing to do with censorship. Limitations to free speech take the form of:

limiting profanity (so you can't say "fuck you, cunt" at 10:00 in the morning during the Sunday cartoons, for example);

holding people accountable for slander and libel;

reasonable restraints on speech in the interest of public safety (the often cited yelling fire in a crowded theatre); etc.

The list goes on and on. Limitations to free speech are mostly very reasonable and necessary. There is a huge difference between a limitation and censorship. I am the biggest free speech proponent I know, but obviously there have to be limitations.

JordyWordy

So we're all agreed, everything stays as it is?

Heineken Helen

meistereder wrote:

Yeah, well... What I am talking about has nothing to do with censorship. Limitations to free speech take the form of:

limiting profanity (so you can't say "fuck you, cunt" at 10:00 in the morning during the Sunday cartoons, for example);

holding people accountable for slander and libel;

reasonable restraints on speech in the interest of public safety (the often cited yelling fire in a crowded theatre); etc.

The list goes on and on. Limitations to free speech are mostly very reasonable and necessary. There is a huge difference between a limitation and censorship. I am the biggest free speech proponent I know, but obviously there have to be limitations.

ain't nothin wrong with profanity...

'slander' and 'libel' = simply another word for 'lies'. Why the hell can you bring someone to court for lying... can nobody fucking defend themselves anymore?

what if there IS a fire in a crowded theatre?

There is no such thing as free speech... but there fucking should be... how far will it go?

nothinghead

i really don't see anything wrong with yelling fire in a crowded theater.

i also don't see anything wrong with said theater crowd beating you senseless afterward.

with any type of freedom comes great responsibility, and, occasionally, consequence.


edit: you know, unless there's a fire.

Heineken Helen

nothinghead wrote:

i really don't see anything wrong with yelling fire in a crowded theater.

i also don't see anything wrong with said theater crowd beating you senseless afterward.

with any type of freedom comes great responsibility, and, occasionally, consequence.


edit: you know, unless there's a fire.

well said. why must everything be 'illegal'? Why can't people just be taught respect and common sense and there'd be no need for all these millions of senseless laws?

spiral out

Heineken Helen wrote:

well said. why must everything be 'illegal'? Why can't people just be taught respect and common sense and there'd be no need for all these millions of senseless laws?

I think in general that the human race does not like taking responsibility so there for, we need to have rules to take responsibilty for us.

Heineken Helen

spiral out wrote:

I think in general that the human race does not like taking responsibility so there for, we need to have rules to take responsibilty for us.

I agree that people don't like taking responsibility... but that's cos there are too many rules already. So they think 'well there's no rule against this so I can do it'. Respect is the main issue... in that it's almost non-existent these days. Making more rules and laws will just make more people criminals... it's education that's really missing.

decides2dream

meistereder wrote:

Yeah, well... What I am talking about has nothing to do with censorship. Limitations to free speech take the form of:

limiting profanity (so you can't say "fuck you, cunt" at 10:00 in the morning during the Sunday cartoons, for example);

holding people accountable for slander and libel;

reasonable restraints on speech in the interest of public safety (the often cited yelling fire in a crowded theatre); etc.

The list goes on and on. Limitations to free speech are mostly very reasonable and necessary. There is a huge difference between a limitation and censorship. I am the biggest free speech proponent I know, but obviously there have to be limitations.

well said.
and overall, i agree.


i too am a huge supporter of freedom of speech, but i also don't take issue with what i too consider necessary limitations. also, i think far, far, far too many people like to call out the 'free speech' message, in areas where really, it is wrong. like people who bitch about the lack of 'free speech' on a privately hosted message board, for example. freedom of speech does still exist, even in areas that do endorse censorship...as long as you knew in advance and willingly agreed to abide. if one does not want to, one moves to another forum, freedom of speech still intact.


limitations alone are not censorship.