Why is 'Freedom of Speech' so misunderstood?

[spartandude]

People also use Freedom of speech as an excuse to hide from criticism but failing to remember that freedom of speech works both ways

for example a couple of weeks ago a kid in my sociology class started saying a bunch of homophobic crap towards me (im bi) and then said that i cant complain because its "freedom of speech" completely failing to realise that i, by his logic, also had the freedom of speech to call him a tosser

 

[Dejawesp]

Freedom of speech has it's pros and cons. Sure anyone can say what they want without legal punishment, but anyone can say what they want without legal punishment. The main bone I have to pick with it is that it can help defend those who would bring it down. People who want to destroy the freedom of speech and state so are protected by it. It's so fucking annoying.

So we are to pre-emptively destroy freedom of speech to defend it from destruction?

Absolutly. Freedom of Speech is so over-rated anyway.

No, of course not. I understand the slippery slope we'd go down by limiting forms of expression like that, don't get me wrong. But should we allow those who would wish to tear down a government to be protected by it? It's kind of giving the enemy the rope to hang you with.

Something like this should be treated with the uptmost caution and care so as not to decend into oppresive tyranny.

By attacking the freedom of speech we are not just giving them the rope. We are tying the noose and building the scaffold.

One could draw a parallel to 9/11. By destroying the world trade centre. The terrorists caused modest financial damage to the nation but from that attack the nation itself attacked and destroyed many of its freedoms in the form of anti terrorism legislations that limited the individuals freedom. All the while calling out to the terrorists that they will not hurt our freedom.

Freedom of speech is a great thing but in order to have it we must tolerate speech that we are not comfortable with. People seem to think that they have the right to not be offended but if I have a right not to be offended then so does the people with different views than me and things go from there.

I'm sure that irony's hilarious when they're lynching people and burning down their houses.

Murder and destruction of property are already illegal and last I checked. No one in this thread are proposing to change that.

 

[daltonlaffs]

I'll say what nobody else is keen to admit: Everyone knows what free speech is and what it actually protects. They just knowingly twist it to their favor.

Since America is mainly populated by idiots and pushovers, pulling "free speech" where there is no such violation is a great way to win any argument, or to harass whoever you want without consequence. The people trying to claim it are well aware of the fact that it doesn't really give them that right -- but they also know that nobody is going to argue with it. It's like when a bully tries to pick a fight with you when the teacher is in the room, knowing that you can't attack them or shut them up because then you would be the one who's in trouble.

You know what there needs to be? A law specifying that any false claimants of free speech end up being fined. They know what they're doing. Stop letting them get away with it.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Freedom of speech is a wonderful idea, and completely fucking stupid in practice.

As soon as you start inciting hatred, adding to racial tensions, and flat-out lying to promote your own ideas (which often relate to the former two examples, and stuff like them), people have every right to shut you up.

No, they have every right to challenge what you have said. You call them out for the lies, racism etc they are peddling. The fact that when most people hear both sides of something they believe the lies etc is a whole separate issue (education system etc). But you do not put down bad idea's by suppressing them. But by exposing them for what they are. Yes, it is harder work, but when was there something worth while ever not hard work.

Quite easily, since the majority aren't a bunch of nutty extremists.

Dangerous people are still dangerous people even if we don't let them mention just how crazy they are.

Of course they aren't - if the danger comes from a person being given a platform from which they may freely spout racist and xenophobic lies, then preventing them from doing so makes them less of a danger.

Others, meanwhile, do not act on such views because they feel they are alone in them. Giving people some sort of figurehead like that is then what makes those unwilling to go further more dangerous.

When the klu klux klan marches down the street. Bring out your family and point out the irony of grown men. In urine stained bedsheets proclaiming themselves to be the master race.

I do not worry about a man proclaiming hate speech. I worry about an otherwise sensible person who want the legal system to silence him.

According to Freakonomics the klan suffered a real hit, not by laws stopping what they were doing, but by having all of their secret rituals exposed via the early Superman radio shows. They were made a laughing stock.

The same has to some extents happened with Scientology. It is taken less seriously when you use free speech to expose it's tenets.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

Free speech is a good concept but Its almost impossible to put into any kind of practised form because people are as a whole not nearly civilised or understanding enough.

Humanity for all our positives are ultimately a bunch of overly-clever animals with a whole lot of broken systems and self created falsehoods. We are still driven by the same basic drives as most other animals, we are still stuck in a tribal mindset despite trying to create a system beyond that.

My opinion on the matter is this, once information is free people will become more accepting. Free speech in the sense of "I can say anything I like ha ha" is basically inoperable just now and I doubt it will become possible for it in my life time anyway. Free information on the other hand?

Every oppressive regime in history has held its authority through control of information, free the information, free the people.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I'll sum my thoughts up by quoting MovieBob and then adding on to it.

"Words mean things." If you lack the intelligence to know what those words mean and what consequences they might bring, maybe you shouldn't speak it in the first place, or at the very least re-think it. The phrase "Freedom of Speech" may imply you can say whatever you want, but it also implies that this freedom is based on the limitations of the intelligence of the person speaking them. Add that to the sensationalism and fascist theocracy in the US, and you can see why our culture isn't so much declining as it is taking a full-on nose dive.

 

[hyker]

actually, south park makes a pretty good point about that (like there's anything controversial that south park doesn't make a good point about...) and yes they pretty much say this, expressing yourself freely and calling someone a raving nazi-loving psychotic isn't the same

 

[HellspawnCandy]

Somehow the Westboro Baptist church gets away with it.

 

[Dogstile]

The main thing that bothers me with free speech (although I agree with the OP, if you call a co-worker a ****** or ****** then that private organistaion has every right to fire you) is people who support free speech as long as they agree with what's being said. Like when the WBC were banned from preaching in England. I mean I hate those guys as much as anyone, but freedom of speech exists to defend unpopular speech. We don't need to defend things the majority agree with.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

WBC was banned in England because they practice hate speech. That's banned here.

 

[Woodsey]

Freedom of speech is a wonderful idea, and completely fucking stupid in practice.

As soon as you start inciting hatred, adding to racial tensions, and flat-out lying to promote your own ideas (which often relate to the former two examples, and stuff like them), people have every right to shut you up.

Kinda hypocritical that you're using freedom of speech to say that.

No it isn't - not even in the slightest. I don't have a problem with freedom of speech when it doesn't put other people at risk, or stigmatise them, or lead to their persecution.

I wouldn't put a man in jail for saying he doesn't like black people. I would put him in jail for telling a bunch of impressionable thugs that black people are inferior, and that the only way to get rid of them and the issues they cause is to use physical force to drive them out of the areas they live in.

The main thing that bothers me with free speech (although I agree with the OP, if you call a co-worker a ****** or ****** then that private organistaion has every right to fire you) is people who support free speech as long as they agree with what's being said. Like when the WBC were banned from preaching in England. I mean I hate those guys as much as anyone, but freedom of speech exists to defend unpopular speech. We don't need to defend things the majority agree with.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

They incite racial hatred - that's illegal.

 

[Dejawesp]

actually, south park makes a pretty good point about that (like there's anything controversial that south park doesn't make a good point about...) and yes they pretty much say this, expressing yourself freely and calling someone a raving nazi-loving psychotic isn't the same

But then we can't protect one without protecting the other. And freedom of speech is too important to throw away for the sake of a few peoples personal comfort.

We have to endure hearing things we are not comfortable with for the sake of the bigger picture.

 

[zehydra]

People have a tendency it seems to think that our constitution applies to anything other than the government. For instance, nothing in the constitution is being violated if some website decides to censor your comment. Your freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution only protects you from the government, and nobody else.

 

[Dejawesp]

People have a tendency it seems to think that our constitution applies to anything other than the government. For instance, nothing in the constitution is being violated if some website decides to censor your comment. Your freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution only protects you from the government, and nobody else.

Exactly. A newspapper can censor itself as much as it likes. So can a TV channel and a private establishment can throw you out for having an opinion. Freedom of speech does only and should only apply to the government

 

[Rusty pumpkin]

Cause we have a terrible, terrible habit of exploiting our freedom to smash other peoples freedom. See the legal system that supports suing people.

 

[Danny Ocean]

If muslims can ask for British to be killed, then right wing/racist groups should be able to do the same. I am against racism, but when supposed muslims get away with insulting dead soldiers and they do not get prosecuted for inciting hate speech....then i get pissed off.

That sounds like rather simplistic talk of justice that's based on revenge, not harmony.

If muslims can ask for British to be killed, then right wing/racist groups should be able to do the same.

Why? Why should we let ourselves sink to their level?

I think that, more often than not, 'Free Speech' results in one small child hiding behind mummy and sticking his tongue out while the other one cries, while mum says 'Sticks and stones, sticks and stones'.

The fact of the matter is that words can break bones.

 

[Jonci]

Just remember that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean "without consequence".
As for the First Amendment, it only protects from the government preventing free exchange of opinion. It doesn't protect you from someone sueing your butt for saying/writing something false. It doesn't protect you from being fired by the private organization you work for.