Does the internet give too much freedom of speech?

[Quoth]

I had to do a presentation recently on "The Internet" and had to highlight the good and the bad. For the bad I said that I felt that there are too many people talking about things that really had no bearing on them at all. We get the opportunity now to see in to the most intimate aspects of people life and draw judgement with little to no appreciation of the target of vitriol.

Personally I sometimes think that people should think twice before they go running to the internet to vent their spleen about something (or someone). What about you?

 

[Ratty]

Aside from the whole argument that you "Can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater." (which has its own problems) there's pretty much no thing as "too much freedom of speech" in the public space. In your own home, fine, you don't have to listen to what you don't want. But when you're out and about you have to take the speech you hate with the speech you like. It's a bit of a cliche but as has been said the free world is "a marketplace of ideas".

But I think what you really mean is "do people expose too many personal information about themselves on social media" and yes I would agree that's true in many cases, but that's on the individuals really. We don't ban cars because bad drives kill thousands of people every year.

captcha: "silence is golden" i c wat u did there captcha.

 

[Quoth]

What about people who expose other people on social media?

 

[DoPo]

We get the opportunity now to see in to the most intimate aspects of people life and draw judgement with little to no appreciation of the target of vitriol.

Hey, you know what you don't need in that sentence? It's "see in to the most intimate aspects of people life and". That whole thing, if you just take it out, you are left with "We get the opportunity now to draw judgement with little to no appreciation of the target of vitriol." And you know what you don't need there? The Internet. You do not need the Internet to have that. I'd link to propaganda posters but I can't be bothered to look them up. I trust you'd believe me they pre-date the Internet and that they do exactly what you need without bothering with "most intimate aspects" of any kind. Oh and it's not only them - humanity has been capable of exactly this behaviour for literally centuries. I don't know why you think the Internet started it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No. It's just that the speakers don't practice as much self-control as they should.

"Give an inch" and all that.

Freedom of Speech exists not just as some noble ivory tower concept of right that we all take for granted, it exists so anyone has the ability to say what needs to be said, and not just what society wants to hear.

 

[lacktheknack]

I thought that "Freedom of Speech" meant that you can't be prosecuted for saying words, outside of a bunch of exceptions (such as death threats, sharing certain personal info/trade secrets, etc).

The Internet isn't subject to free speech at all, since most of it is owned by private entities.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Too much freedom of speech? No.

Too much freedom of speech without consequences? Yes. The death threats, the utter seething hatred, the lack of respect for anyone whatsoever. The Internet has removed the filter in a lot of people's brains, and as such they can literally say whatever they want and don't have to worry about it. Whereas, if these people said these things in public, they would be arrested, or at the very least punched. You can't go around in real life threatening to cut off someone's head because you don't like their song or something.

Please note, I'm talking about those types of people who comment on youtube videos, or news articles, or stuff like that. I highly doubt they would say these things in public because common sense would kick in. Hate groups, on the other hand, clearly have no problem with it.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I'm not sure there's such a thing as too much freedom of speech. Okay, you're not allowed to create danger by making threats or yelling fire in a crowded theater. Beyond that, anything goes.

However, the Internet absolutely does provide way too much freedom from courtesy, responsibility, and culpability. People would be a lot nicer if whoever they were talking to was sitting next to them instead of 2000 miles away.

 

[Lieju]

We get the opportunity now to see in to the most intimate aspects of people life and draw judgement with little to no appreciation of the target of vitriol.

Hey, you know what you don't need in that sentence? It's "see in to the most intimate aspects of people life and". That whole thing, if you just take it out, you are left with "We get the opportunity now to draw judgement with little to no appreciation of the target of vitriol." And you know what you don't need there? The Internet. You do not need the Internet to have that. I'd link to propaganda posters but I can't be bothered to look them up. I trust you'd believe me they pre-date the Internet and that they do exactly what you need without bothering with "most intimate aspects" of any kind. Oh and it's not only them - humanity has been capable of exactly this behaviour for literally centuries. I don't know why you think the Internet started it.

Oh, yes.

I grew up in a small village, and once the local gossip-lady saw a 'package' dropped from a car passing by, which somehow morphed in her mind as proof the man living in the house that was close by (and a police, which only made him more suspicious!) was involved in drug-trafficking.

Also my mum's husband used someone else's car once when he visited us which was taken as evidence that some other man was visiting my mum and that she was probably cheating on him behind his back...

Also I was apparently a satanist.

And it's not harassment either that's new, my dad worked for a newspaper and got threatening letters and phone calls before the Internet was a thing...

 

[carnex]

If you ask me free speech is quite a nice thing even when you have to deal with piles of rubbish it pours out. it's not like talking rubbish is something new.

But seriously, even if you try to ban it, there always will be sites like 4chan with no responsibility and it will live on. It's not like anyone with two brain cells can't figure out using internet how to get info on people. Hell, sites do the digging for you for free and do much deeper digging if you pay them. And it's a legitimate business, or at least it was. i don't know if it still is.

people always were opinionated and assholes and always will be opinionated and assholes. And if you want threats, just go to a ball game and trash talk the wrong team and see how it goes

 

[Aurion]

I'm just going to point out that freedom of speech is only legally relevant when you're referencing the federal or state governments of the USA. The First Amendment protects you from the government, not your employer firing you because you said his kids are ugly or a forum mod banning you for flaming.

For other countries, I can't comment.

Thanks to that, I tend to disagree since the Internet is more a collection of individually and corporately-owned fiefdoms. It's always a desirable goal of course, but freedom is not all positive. There'll always be tradeoffs.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Ultimate freedom is what makes the internet...the internet. Trying to impose control on any level is problematic, as is any form of censorship. Oh, it's easy to begin with "we'll just hush away the really horrid stuff", but before you know it, you have suppressed the internet as a whole and now no one can say anything about anything.

It's paranoid, but it's why sites have their own individual rules that correspond only to that site, and that is the best approach. Internet-wide regulation is just bad, even if its just for clean-ups sake as can be seen with Net Neutrality and SOPA.

Besides, you have the basic tools for personal-use censorship. Someone pestering you on Facebook? Block them/report them. A thread you don't like is gaining traction? Ignore it.

 

[Vegosiux]

Free speech is nice, but some people seem to think that it includes threats and coercion. After all, I'm free to tell you I'm going to screw up your life unless you do exactly what I say! See, it's just speech! I'm only saying that!

People thinking that; well, that's a problem.

 

[deathbydeath]

I'd say the problem is mostly people taking advantage of anonymity and an absence of an immediate/physical response, but a lot of conflict is also caused because disembodied text doesn't carry all the inflections of speech. I know that's screwed me over a few times and turned civil arguments hostile.

That is one of the most fascist ideas I've ever read and you disgust me.

1. Who are you replying to?
2. Based on the (absence of) context in your post I'll assume you mean "fascist" as in "something I disagree with" instead of "supportive of radical authoritarian nationalism".

 

[spartan231490]

I'd say the problem is mostly people taking advantage of anonymity and an absence of an immediate/physical response, but a lot of conflict is also caused because disembodied text doesn't carry all the inflections of speech. I know that's screwed me over a few times and turned civil arguments hostile.

That is one of the most fascist ideas I've ever read and you disgust me.

1. Who are you replying to?
2. Based on the (absence of) context in your post I'll assume you mean "fascist" as in "something I disagree with" instead of "supportive of radical authoritarian nationalism".

Oh, a conundrum. Let's look at the clues. A post that didn't quote any particular comment in a discussion thread. Maybe, just maybe, it was directed at the original post, the thing that all comments in the thread are a response to.

And no, I mean supportive of radical authoritarian nationalism, since it's radically anti-freedom.

 

[deathbydeath]

Oh, a conundrum. Let's look at the clues. A post that didn't quote any particular comment in a discussion thread. Maybe, just maybe, it was directed at the original post, the thing that all comments in the thread are a response to.

And no, I mean supportive of radical authoritarian nationalism, since it's radically anti-freedom.

The OP was the first thing I checked, but your comment doesn't make sense as a response to it. He isn't saying that people shouldn't be allowed to display what they want on the internet, but instead that people should use that ability more thoughtfully and responsibility. This is a suggestion for change from the bottom up, not authoritative action. That's why your post seemed out of place to me.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

There is no such thing as too much freedom of speech.

 

[OrokuSaki]

I disagree entirely. I think that people not only aren't going overboard with their speech on the internet, I think that the constant regulation of speech to fit withing the societal definition of "Acceptable" needs to stop. Also I think that minor acts of physical violence should not be considered crimes.

I feel that we, as a planet, should have the freedom to say whatever we want to whomever we want regardless of context or authority. I also believe that if that something is insulting and directed at us, we should have the right to punch the person that said it; regardless of age, gender, race, or ethnicity.

So if I walk down the street and a 6 year-old says: "Look at the fat man." I should be able to punch her without repercussion. That's the only real way that we can grow as a society, we have to test the limits, find out where the boundaries are, and decide for ourselves whether or not we want to risk being punched.