What Is Free Speech?

For a right that often forms the basis for basic political rights in a society, Freedom of Speech is often taken for granted. The very phrase “Freedom of Speech” certainly has a nice ring to it, and most of us don’t hesitate to invoke it when we feel our expression has been limited. But, beyond a trite phrase, what does it really mean? Or, more to the point, what should it mean?

I’ve come across many occasions in SD where people have battled over what this concept actually means. I remember quite clearly during the Occupy threads, there was some heavy discussion if the forced removal of protestors from certain public areas constituted a violation of First Amendment rights to free expression. People are often surprised that, despite guarantees to safeguard free expression, government regulations on time, manner, and place of such expression are not uncommon. In fact, since the September 11th attacks, such regulations have been increasing in number.

Additionally, when Youtube announced that it would regulate anti-religious videos, it wasn’t uncommon to observe people invoking rights of Free Speech—and people would often express surprise when they discovered that Free Speech rights generally did not govern attempted censorship between private parties.

What about hate speech, fighting words/threats, obscenity, etc.? How should they be treated? Usually in these threads, I focus on what the law is. In this thread, I want to compare what the law is with what you think it should be. What is Free Speech to you? Should there be exceptions, and if so, what? Should Free Speech end where bad behavior begins? (Sorry Chris, that was the best I could do to work that in)

I would normally make a more specific OP, but given that I want maximize the number of responses, I’ll keep it fairly broad for now.

Freedom of speech has always been something of a gray area, I think. It gives people the right to speak their mind responsibly without fear (well, without overwhelming fear) of legal reprisal, but some people have minds that think some truly terrifying things (such as the Westboro Baptist Church or, more commonly, Fox News). And even "responsibly" is cast into question; it's naive to assume that entities - the government, your boss, etc. - won't retaliate in petty ways because you're not on the same pages regarding society, politics, and values, so mediums such as the internet that provide (relative) anonymity are invaluable, yet you also have trolls abusing the right to free speech.

While I wouldn't mind legal processes for shutting down the Westboro Baptist Church and Fox News for the stuff they talk about, while I think these people should shut up for common decency and common sense (both of which they violate with increasing fervor), the reality of it is that the stick could easily swing the other way in an attempt to curb decent speech. It's not a perfect system, and a balance is nearly impossible to strike, but a ban on free discussion of ideas does not mean its death. Censoring either Fox News or the Westboro Baptist Church will not stop people from thinking like them until the fundamentals of such viewpoints - racism, misogyny, discrimination against non-Christians, nationalism, and radical conservatism/liberalness - are adequately addressed. We should take the presence of that discussion as constantly reminders that these are issues that need to be address, all while using free speech to propagate values that are worth passing down.

I think if it's truly speech, or discussion, then it should fall under free speech. Say if I wrote a paper of some sort that was along the lines of "Gays, Blacks, and Jews are going to hell..." and backed up my argument with total air and really nothing of value (in this case, a "the bible says so" would suffice) and say that it's freedom of speech, that would be wrong. Say if I wrote the same paper but this time had like factual information and analyzed data (not to mention a good argument), then it would fall under freed speech. So basically, if it's genuinely well written (spoken, what have you) and has valuable arguments, then I'd say it falls under free speech.

Freedom of Speech is the limitation of speech, more or less. We, as Americans, have our "Unalienable rights", but Freedom of Speech is the way that government has the ability to manipulate the personal freedoms of the citizens of the United States.

Freedom of Speech should be the right that allows people to speak as they please. It should be the ability to have your say, without infringing on others' rights.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

Freedom of Speech is the limitation of speech, more or less. We, as Americans, have our "Unalienable rights", but Freedom of Speech is the way that government has the ability to manipulate the personal freedoms of the citizens of the United States.

Would you mind elaborating a little bit more on what you mean here?

@ Goldfish: Do you believe that speech should be protected if it has a basis in fact or some kind of evidence? Are you also saying that if it does not have a basis in fact or other evidence it should not be protected?

Think of it like this:

We have our rights that nobody should be able to take away, but they are being tampered with. We are, in essence, losing our rights. The whole concept of Freedom of Speech is how the government can control the population of the US.

Originally Posted by Raptor Buddha

Would you mind elaborating a little bit more on what you mean here?

@ Goldfish: Do you believe that speech should be protected if it has a basis in fact or some kind of evidence? Are you also saying that if it does not have a basis in fact or other evidence it should not be protected?

Hmm... I guess it's fairly based on the situation. But, for the most part yes (but I do see where you wouldn't need facts). But I do think that anything with a good argument should be protected weather or it has evidence or factual information or neither.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

Think of it like this:

We have our rights that nobody should be able to take away, but they are being tampered with. We are, in essence, losing our rights. The whole concept of Freedom of Speech is how the government can control the population of the US.

I'm sorry, I still don't quite get what you're trying to say. Furthermore, say what you want about the ills of government, but freedom of speech, or more generally the Bill of Rights, was something specifically tailored to limit the power of the federal government. It's certainly arguable how faithful the government has been since then to the concept of freedom of speech--or the Bill of Rights in general--but I really don't see your point that "Freedom of Speech is how the government can control the population of the US. Would you mind trying a second time?

& @Goldfish, thank you very much for clarifying.

I really am not looking to have a debate with people here, though I might ask for clarification or throw out ideas to discuss.

Basically, the government is abusing the power to control the voice of the US in order to prevent things that go against their political agenda. Ergo, I find the intentions to be very much unlike how it is now because the intentions were to create freedom, while our government's current usage of it is to limit freedoms instead of actually creating more freedom.
Does this make sense?

I think the most common way our legal system deals with it is you can do what ever you want until it affects something. Pretty much the classic "fire in a crowded theater" example. I find this to be the best compromise because it recognizes our rights, but at the same time our actions have consequences.

If something doesn't affect anything such as you getting up on your soap box then you should every right to say it. I don't think being offended by what is being said is an acceptable reason to not allow someone their first amendment right.

I am purposefully being vague by saying "affects something" because their is too much gray area to be definite. Things like racial hate speech which may just some person being a jerk or it could have actual affects such as encouraging acts of discrimination or violence.

On the topic of youtube censorship while I do not agree and would hope they would respect the ideology of free speech they don't have to. Only the government is really required to. It's a shame, but there isn't much we can do about it.

Overall free speech is very complicated if nothing else. I believe leaving it open to interpretation is in our best interest as more absolute policies are dangerous.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

Basically, the government is abusing the power to control the voice of the US in order to prevent things that go against their political agenda. Ergo, I find the intentions to be very much unlike how it is now because the intentions were to create freedom, while our government's current usage of it is to limit freedoms instead of actually creating more freedom.
Does this make sense?

Well, to be honest I don't think it really makes sense without a little more elaboration along with some more specific examples. If you want to further this point with examples or support for this, that's fine. Short of that, however, it's kind of hard to follow what you're specifically trying to get at.

However, if you're having trouble defining what freedom of speech is, why not answer the other part of the question, which is "what do you think freedom of speech should be?"

Kind of hard to say. I don't think hate speech is nice. Y'know, treat others how you want to be treated, don't say something if you don't have anything nice to say, etc. I look down upon Westboro and other hate groups, but I don't know if legal action should be taken. If it were allowed, who knows where we'll be somewhere down the line? A few laws here and there and twenty years later we might find it illegal to speak against the government.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, but only insomuch that the governing body can enforce it. For instance, the government cannot suppress criticisms against it.

Notice, however, that I used the term "governing body" instead of "government". The two are not ubiquitous. A governing body as defined by myself is a person or party who holds ownership of whatever you'll be attempting to invoke freedom of speech against.

So, for an example, if the school board of your high school imposes rules that limit the way you dress or prohibit cursing, you can't invoke free speech rights in order to subvert that because your freedom of speech isn't actually being inhibited in the greater general public.

The reason this works is because this rule also protects the interest of third parties where the government needs (and usually deserves) no protection from criticism so long as there is no active discrimination occurring as dictated by any discrimination laws.



On a side note, I live in Trenton, Tennessee, so if you've heard about the Confederate flag prom dress issue, I live around 2 miles from that. Seems relevant to the discussion.

Tennessee girl barred from prom for wearing Confederate flag dress | Fox News

I use FOX cautiously here since it contains relevant images.

This is going to be a messy topic (as philosophical quandaries often are,) but free speech is really what it says on the tin, it is the right to speak your mind.

Now, keep in mind that speech is itself an action, and as such is just as subject to prevented use as any other action where needed. I.E. if you're trying to perpetuate hate speech or are just being a 'troll', there is nothing legally stopping anyone else from letting you skewer yourself on your own 'rapier wit'.

By that same token, there are places where unrestricted speech will obviously just end up hurting others (like the infamous shouting of the word 'Fire' in a crowded Theatre), so those places aren't necessarily 'free' in the common assumption.

Simply put, it is just the right to speak your mind in the public forum without fear of reprehension beyond what is unjustifiable an hurtful. It is pretty much what a forum is, as that term was originally used to define 'a place of public discussion'.

Now, I'm getting out of here before I put my foot in my mouth.

I think freespeech ends when it advocates violence against others. I think America is the only country with true free speech, but I also feel like America allows too much hate speech.

Britain, for example, does not have free speech. They have the "tradition of free speech" which can be ended without real consequence at any time. I don't think hate speech should be tolerated, but someone should should be able to make a claim without fearing that they'll be arrested no matter how disgusting it is, as long as it doesn't advocate violence against other individuals.

I don't think I should have to accept other people if I don't want to. As always, I don't think my actions should matter unless if it affects others. People have the right to hate, but they can';t use that as a reason to hurt others.

Originally Posted by Nite and Deigh

I think freespeech ends when it advocates violence against others. I think America is the only country with true free speech, but I also feel like America allows too much hate speech.

First part I agree with, second part I don't. As far as hate speech (and hate crimes for that matter) goes, I'd like to see it gotten rid of, becuase when you think about it, it's such a ridiculous law. You're in essense penalizing an opinion, an emotion (hatred) or a thought, and that's wrong. period.

Where I'd like to draw the limit is - like you said - inciting violence, threats or false alarms (like yelling "fire!" or "bomb!" when there is none to cause panic or whatever). Of course there's always a gray area here as well and you can incite violence without actually doing it explicitly. But that's what we have courts for, I guess. To judge on a case-to-case basis.

But yeah, as far as hate speech goes, get rid of it. While I agree that it'd be less pleasant to walk in a bookstore seeing books like "we are the superior race" or "the filthy asians" or whatever, I think it's necessary because those opinions are out there. Making the poeple who hold these opinions hide won't solve the problem, it'll just make it worse. If they're not allowed to express their opinion publically, how can we defeat their ideas with our ideas? Telling a racist "you can't say that" won't convince him/her, we have to discuss the issue thoroughly. Otherwise what will happen (and does happen) is that those people will find eachother and further enforce their ideas with nobody to convince them otherwise.

With hate crimes, I don't think the motivation matters. If you kill a man, you kill a man.


To summarize: Hate is a human emotion that we can't control. Penalizing hate makes about as much sense as penalizing love, boredom or excitement.

Complete Freedom of Speech is quite obviously, the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want whenever you want however you want. It also quite obviously doesn't exist anywhere in the world. We only exercise limited Freedom of Speech.

Just like we cede some personal sovereignty to a government in exchange for protection/support/progress, we give up some amount of our Free Speech in exchange for being protected from idiots who shout fire in a movie theatres, or from verbal abuse, or in order to criminalize the planning of terrorism.

However, the degree of personal Free Speech we've given up is arbitrary. It's impossible to set a quantitative amount. Have we given up the freedom to criticize others? Express racist views? These are important questions for the times.

I'm also going to ignore it if someone makes an obligatory Orwell/Franklin/Lenin/Whoever reference. Just so ya know.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

With hate crimes, I don't think the motivation matters. If you kill a man, you kill a man.

That is the stance the law takes. What the law also provides for is an increase in sentence if it was a hate crime, as the fact that the crime was motivated by religious or racial factors is considered an aggravating feature of the offence which the court may take into account when sentencing (so there's punching a man because he looked at you funny, which is assault and will get you a certain sentence, then there's punching a man because he's black, which will get you a harsher sentence for being racist).

Further, law takes motivation into account all the time. It's one of the two components of proving guilt: "Mens Rea", or "Guilty Mind". With a few exceptions one cannot commit a crime by accident. One can break the law by mistake, but if you can prove that you had no intent to do so then in the vast majority of situations you're found not guilty.

^ Right, but what I'm saying is that one motivation shouldn't weigh higher than another, unless we're talking... self-defense or whatever's the term for "I had to kill one to save many" (and it was legit, not in a terrorist sort of way like I had to kill all these teenagers on an island to save the world from islamisation).

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

so there's punching a man because he looked at you funny, which is assault and will get you a certain sentence, then there's punching a man because he's black, which will get you a harsher sentence for being racist

And this is the part I disagree with because here we're penalizing ideology. I haven't had this discussion before so maybe you can come up with a reason or example where we should penalize morality that will convince me otherwise, but my stance on it is that an idea can never be a crime.