Why do so many people on this forum misunderstand what 'freedom of speech' means?

[Olas]

The answer to this question is far too complex. Some of it is lack of education; some of it is willful self-delusion; some of it is that supposed authorities like the people on Fox "News" willfully perpetuate this incorrect myth whenever it suits their purposes. There are a lot of reasons.

Actually, it seems pretty clear that OP is asking that question rhetorically. Basically this thread is a way for him to billboard the message: LOTS OF YOU PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' MEANS AND IT'S TICKING ME OFF, SO I'M CREATING THIS THREAD TO TRY AND CLEAR THIS UP FOR YOU!

 

[mew4ever23]

Yeah, it's not just this forum - it's people in general. People need to understand that freedom of speech only really applies when you're dealing with the government.

And it does not protect you when your speech causes harm to people.

 

[nariette]

I remember a critical miss episode about this issue. I think it was about Anita Sarkeesian disabling comments and ratings on her videos, and people flaming her for "silencing the debate, freedom of speech", the comic ended with Erin kneeling in front of a commenter sobbing "I'm so sorry xxvegetaxx, I must hear your opinion on gender politics!", and him replying "LOL, hope u get raped". Which is true. I don't agree with everything Sarkeesian says, but she's not "silencing the debate", she is stopping people from making stupid, sexist remarks constantly. There are probably lots of arguments against her opinion, but no one can take you seriously if you say sexism is not a problem when making rape threats to a woman and calling her a whore.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to be a total asshole. It means you will not be thrown rocks at if you don't exactly agree with someone. If you are against a certain viewpoint that some else does agree with, I'd advice you to not use phrases like "I hope she gets raped" "whore/slut/succubus imposter" if you'd want anyone to take you seriously. There is still the amendment of discrimination.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because the vast majority of people in real life don't understand what freedom of speech means.

You wouldn't believe the amount of people cried about that Duck Dynasty dude being censored and having his "freedom of speech" crushed on my Facebook wall.

People period don't understand freedom of speech. It's not this forum, it's people.

I'd also add they probably don't apply it evenly, either.

The DD controversy was bookended by cases where a lot of the same people (not all of them, mind) condemned liberals and demanded they be fired/punished for their speech. Freedom of speech for people we agree with (even if it's not really a speech issue), no freedom of speech for people we don't.

Oh, and now there's this Toby Keith thing, which I'm hoping ends in a major boycott but probably won't.

I assume there's confusion about the right of freedom of speech, and the more general Libertarian/Anarchist concepts of Freedom of Speech *shrugs*

Like "You don't have the RIGHT to ban me, even though you have the power."

That and people probably don't read what the constitution (for the US) says and means by it.

I would think that at the very least, libertarians would support the right of a forum holder to ban people from a forum. Not just the power, but the right.

"If it's supposed to mean equality between genders, why isn't it called humanism, hurr durr"

Because humanism is, and I quote, "a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence over established doctrine or faith."

Checkmate, MRAs

I'd also note that it doesn't matter what term is used, it'll be turned into a trigger word by oversensitive men who use words like "feminazi" and "mangina" unironically. The idea that they might lose special snowflake treatment because another group is recognised appears to be too much in any terminology.

Because people think freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want and have no consequences attached. Newsflash, you can say whatever the fuck you want, but don't be surprised when someone calls you out on bullshit or punches you in the face; the other person has as much as freedom of speech as you do.

Preeeeeetty sure you don't have the right to punch someone in the face.

 

[Something Amyss]

Before I look up "freedom of speech", I'll jot down what it appears to usually mean:

Freedom to say whatever won't be complained about more than it is defended.

What wikipedia says it means:
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them"

Must resist urge to move those apostrophes...

That's some smutty freedom!

So, remove the buzzwords (and buzz-phrases) from their complaint, and you end up with "The rules here prevent me from saying what I want to say, and I don't like it".

But if you don't couch it in important sounding terms it comes off as whiny and entitled.

Ohhhhhhh....

 

[Euryalus]

I assume there's confusion about the right of freedom of speech, and the more general Libertarian/Anarchist concepts of Freedom of Speech *shrugs*

Like "You don't have the RIGHT to ban me, even though you have the power."

That and people probably don't read what the constitution (for the US) says and means by it.

I would think that at the very least, libertarians would support the right of a forum holder to ban people from a forum. Not just the power, but the right.

Depends on what kind of Libertarianism we're talking about really. Same with Anarchism.

The Libertarian party libertarianism? Yes. Almost guaranteed.

Not all though.

 

[shootthebandit]

I recently saw this before and MovieBob explained it perfectly with full meaning.

Here in the UK, a lady was loud mouth and racist on the bus (or tube I think) to anyone black, brown, foreign or just spoke a different language to her and the comments section in the Mail Online (the Daily Mail) mostly defended this women saying "I can't believed she got arrested, it's her freedom of speech". No it's damn well not. It's similar to those who say "PC has gone mad when I can't call someone a paki or ****** or ***** anymore". NOOOOOOOO, seriously some people would rather be difficult sometimes rather than looking up one simple term that explains everything.

Dont get me started on these so called "newspapers". Daily mail, the sun etc are just institutional racism and poverty porn.

Freedom of speech is the same as any freedom. You are free to do or say whatever you want so long as you accept the consequences. You want to go to south london and call some a ****** then go ahead but when you get your head kicked in or arrested for insighting racial hatred its your fault

 

[JimB]

The answer to this question is far too complex. Some of it is lack of education; some of it is willful self-delusion; some of it is that supposed authorities like the people on Fox "News" willfully perpetuate this incorrect myth whenever it suits their purposes. There are a lot of reasons.

Actually, it seems pretty clear that OP is asking that question rhetorically.

I suppose, but his search for personal catharsis isn't that interesting to me (don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge him it, but I just can't think of much to say to or do with it), so I thought I'd treat the question as legitimate for the sake of indicating I think some of the answers given, though accurate, are unfair in their simplicity.

 

[schrodinger]

Because people think freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want and have no consequences attached. Newsflash, you can say whatever the fuck you want, but don't be surprised when someone calls you out on bullshit or punches you in the face; the other person has as much as freedom of speech as you do.

Preeeeeetty sure you don't have the right to punch someone in the face.

Hush you commie! this is 'murica! i have the justified right to punch anyone's face and running around naked in the streets yelling stuff at people!

 

[Lightknight]

Because the vast majority of people in real life don't understand what freedom of speech means.

Yep, the sentence should have been, "Why do people in general misunderstand what free speech is?"

The answer is most likely a lack of education on the subject. Whether from schooling or personal interest in the subject matter.

But yeah, a lot of people think that freedom of speech somehow means that they can say anything in any place without any repercussion whatsoever. But in reality, every country that I'm aware of has specific limitations and areas and situations that it doesn't apply to. It also doesn't mean that the government is going to protect individuals from being treated differently from private organisations or individuals who dislike what they've said or done.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

I've just never understood why people thought their freedom of speech applied here. I assume this is a privately owned forum, it has its own rules and moderators. They can enforce those rules in whatever way they see fit. If you don't like it leave, use your "freedom of leaving forums you don't like the rules of"

 

[Lightknight]

I've just never understood why people thought their freedom of speech applied here. I assume this is a privately owned forum, it has its own rules and moderators. They can enforce those rules in whatever way they see fit. If you don't like it leave, use your "freedom of leaving forums you don't like the rules of"

Right, just as if you went into someone's home and they didn't want you there anymore because you were talking shit about their mother. They're fully in the legal right to remove you from the premise.

 

[AwesomeHatMan]

The thing that annoys me more is when people (not you, people on other threads) try to act clever by saying
"You're free to speak but you're not free from the consequences etc."
Which demonstrates they have no understanding of how rights work, let alone their rights in regard to the 1st Amendment.

Side-Note: I am not American and in case non-Americans wonder why we keep talking about the 1st Amendment is because the ".com" domain means American. Well, that and because I don't know what the name of the law is in my country whereas most have heard of the 1st Amendment. Probably because America is big and has all of the tv shows.

 

[Vale]

Because we tend to believe that "freedom of speech" is some old, happy, far-off thing that radiates a soothing wave of invisible benevolence in our general direction. Same for human rights. And the value of life. And other things.

It's instinctive (in so far as historically and societally it's been drilled into first-world country folks) and quite normal, and you can always just tell people how the law actually defines freedom of speech and its limitations.

 

[Loonyyy]

Freedom of Speech is when I say whatever I like without consequence, including criticism.

Oppression of my Freedom of Speech is the moment you open your mouth to criticism any of my views.

Hence Duck Dynasty can be a freedom of speech issue, whilst Anita Sarkeesian is censorship.

Although, tangentially, I'm not all that sure about Freedom of Speech. It's meant to support unpopular opinions, in times where opinions or information was needed, but unpopular, such as views critical of the government, or society, that needed changing. But now, just lump in a bunch of NDA bullshit, and governments and corporate entities can potentially ruin you for speaking out. When actual whistleblowers uncover wrongdoing, like Snowden or Assange, they're hunted. It's questionable whether they had the right to release the information they did, or even possess it, but it's also questionable why illegal doings, or simply wrongdoings were covered up(Were a private individual to do that, it would be very illegal). Instead, "Freedom of Speech" tends to get invoked to protect bigots saying that gays should die, women should be raped, and other bullshit hate speech. And a lot of that shit's intensely harmful. I really couldn't give a shit if racists couldn't say "******" or homophobes "******". I really couldn't give a shit if those misogynists who threaten rape were imprisoned for their threats. If protecting the innocent from their bullshit means reigning in their freedoms, then yeah, I'm all for it. The freedoms of those innocent of wrongdoing are more important than those of bigots. Free Speech tends to only be invoked for evil shit, and rarely improves the morality of society, or keeps government in check.

 

[FalloutJack]

Just to make it clear to everyone; freedom of speech doesn't apply on this forum. The mods or people running this site could ban everyone who says they like bunny rabbits, and there's nothing anyone could do about it.
It's their site, they can do what they want.

*Snerk*

Uhh, no. If they didn't allow people to speak their minds, people would be shut down even faster around here, no warnings at all. Hell, this thread would be knocked out of the park 'cause you made flippant reference to the mods. So, with that in mind, I can't agree with your statement here.

 

[Erttheking]

Because if it's one thing I've learned, people love being able to pull a trump card intended to shut people up and from what I've seen, they don't care if they reach for the low fruit. Also that one post about willful ignorance makes a good point too.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

From what I understand Freedom of Speech refers to two things:

The first is the legal Freedom of Speech as defined by the laws of the country the website resides in. In America, private forums are completely within their rights to removes users for speech as they're non-governmental.

The second is the "moral" Freedom of Speech. On the internet, there is generally an unspoken contract between the mods and the users: the users follow the explicit rules of the forum while the mods allow them to express their opinion in any way they want as long as it's not harmful or disruptive to any other users. This contract doesn't have to exist, plenty of forums ban people for opinions they deem stupid, but for most forums this mutual assumption stands.

When people claim their "Freedom of Speech" is being infringed, they're generally talking about the second thing. They're not claiming the mods are doing something illegal, they feel the mod is censoring their opinion without due cause. Of course, more often or not there is due cause and the person either doesn't understand the cause or is willfully ignoring it, but this is generally the claim they're making: not that their rights are being infringed but that the mods are doing something immoral.

 

[EternallyBored]

Just to make it clear to everyone; freedom of speech doesn't apply on this forum. The mods or people running this site could ban everyone who says they like bunny rabbits, and there's nothing anyone could do about it.
It's their site, they can do what they want.

*Snerk*

Uhh, no. If they didn't allow people to speak their minds, people would be shut down even faster around here, no warnings at all. Hell, this thread would be knocked out of the park 'cause you made flippant reference to the mods. So, with that in mind, I can't agree with your statement here.

Iceforce's point still stands, freedom of speech on this board entirely hinges on the site owner's whims. People on this board can say what they want only because the people running the site allow it. Yes, they give us a fair amount of freedom, but it still is entirely at the mercy of whatever the mods desire, so it isn't freedom of speech as typically defined by the law. The second sentence you didn't bold pretty much clarifies this point.