Why is 'Freedom of Speech' so misunderstood?

[Lt. Dragunov]

Freedom of speech only seems to aply to certain things. I'v seen on the news that there KKK gatherings shouting out thier high status over everyone else and they are protected by freedom of speech. Then there was the church that protested the soldier's funeral and they were protected by the freedom of speech. But heaven forbid a group of homosexuals rally down D.C. that would get shut down fast.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wow, I didn't know that people thought it meant anything other than the definition you explained.

Everyone from Sarah Palin to that "opposite marriage" bimbo from the Miss America pageant has claimed to have their free speech violated for losing their job (In Palin's case, just for being criticised).

This is nothing new. The Archie Bunker version of free speech was "I have the right to say what I want and you have to listen." I know he's a fictional character, but he was a sharp satire of the times in which the show ran.

Seriously, a lot of people think one or more of the following:

1. Free Speech is MY right, not yours
2. Free Speech means I am immune to repercussions (firing, criticism, rebuttal, etc...LEGAL ones, not punching someone for disagreeing with you)
3. Free Speech means I can say ANYTHING I want (Which is back to the original post defining slander and libel)
3a. And you have to listen

I almost want to put on a fourth, since some people like WBC seem to think physical intervention (blockading aa funeral procession) is free speech, but it's such a dodgy one and doesn't seem to be that common.

It seems one of the most misinterpreted amendments in the Constitution, possibly element of it in general, mostly because it's such an integral part of our rights and so many people are familiar with it (even if only partially).

 

[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.

No they don't. They're actually quite clever when it comes to this kind of thing which is why it's hard to stop them. They don't attack gay people, they don't promote attacking gay people all they do is say that god hates them and that everything bad that happens is because of gay people and the rest of us tolerating them. It's expressing a horrible belief but that's still all it is.

Well no, they scream "god hates fags!" at the top of their voices and raise tensions wherever they go, and they picket soldiers' funerals. If that's not encouraging hatred/social tensions, I don't know what is.

And I've just found something on Wikipedia which says:

"The church has previously condemned particular nations, such as Italy, which it described as a nation of "mobster-breeding perverts"."

So yeah, really clever and subtle of them. I'm now trying to get the source up, but the charming godhatesfags.com site is down.

 

[Dejawesp]

Just remember that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean "without consequence".

Eh what?

Let me double check that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Unless Congress feels the need to bring consequences upon the person. Legal or otherwise, for expressing their views

Well there you go. I was wrong after all. The freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

The same goes to "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" ... people misunderstand a lot the concepts, and it gets worse/dangerous when some people change the meaning of a concept.

 

[GBlair88]

people are dumb...

Three words that sum up so many issues.

 

[Twilight_guy]

People don't understand the finer details of freedom of speech because they are auxiliary limited constructs that go on top of the basic law. They understand the basic notion, not the specifics.

 

[Something Amyss]

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."

Supporting the right of the WBC to say "God hates fags" is something that raises a lot of eyebrows when I bring it up. I'm not saying I support them...I'm bisexual. I doubt they're making a distinction for the fact that not all of my relationships have been gay. People think it doesn't make sense. But freedom of speech is utterly meaningless unless we protect unpopular speech. Even if I think they're asshats, their right to speech should not be infringed upon legally.

Now, I have other issues. Allegations of threats, harassment, and actually obsctructing processions. And if Phelps ever says "God hates fags, so kill them!" I'll be right up there at the head of the line calling for his arrest.

He can hate gays all he wants. He can camp out at my front door and call me a ****** until he's blue in the face. But I'm not going to try and get Congress to stop him just for that.

The short version: I agree.

 

[nothinghere]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sounds like Freedom of Speech to me. Just because an individual over the age of 21 is free to drink as much alcohol as they want doesn't mean they can't get punched in the face for throwing up on some guys shoes.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? Then why is god in our pledge of allegience?? They don't do a good job at following their own rules do they?

 

[Something Amyss]

Well there you go. I was wrong after all. The freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

Except that's not what's being talked about. Being fired is, for example.

And since 48 of the 50 states are "at will" employment states, I can fire you for political views in most of the country.

Hell, I could probably fire you for liking Pepsi more than Coke or thinking Christopher Eccleston isn't the best Doctor. Long as I don't dfire you because you're black, gay, a woman, o not the "right" religion....

 

[LordFisheh]

Because something is legal does not make it right or wrong. When people refer to freedom of speech, they're often referring to the concept rather than the legal definition.

 

[coolkirb]

In Canada their are what are called "reasonable limits" on all rights, for example you are allowed the freedom to travel wherever you whant but if your in jail you cant travel wherever you want so limiting the right is seen as acceptable. So their are things that you cant say on rare occasion but for the most part you can say whatever you want. My reasoning is it is more trouble than its worth most of the time to go after people for spreading lies about a people or organization so its mostly companys or celebretes sometimes who try to go to courts to protect their image. But for the most part people can say what they want wether it is misinformed xenophobic or whatever else.

Also it could also be confusing to people because they are allowed to believe whatever you want, you can believe the holocaust never happened as some do, their is nothing ilegal about being racist and you can think that Obama or if your Canadian Harper is a the leader of neo-socialist uprising trying to get the goverment to have control of your lives. You are allowed to believe whatever you want and for the most part you can say whatever you want (espicially about public figures as the onus is on them to prove what your saying is wrong) Some people are stupid and will say stupid thing but unless your threating someone or saying something that will harm a reputation enough to make the other person care you can pretty much say whatever you want

 

[Jonci]

Just remember that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean "without consequence".

Eh what?

Let me double check that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Unless Congress feels the need to bring consequences upon the person. Legal or otherwise, for expressing their views

Well there you go. I was wrong after all. The freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

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.

Do not use only part of my post and believe you are winning a point. "Freedom of Speech" isn't a law, it's a concept. There are consequences to what you say. This isn't related to the government. If I started talking about how bad my boss is at his job, I could get fired. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I'm safe from consequence of saying something.

 

[coolkirb]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sounds like Freedom of Speech to me. Just because an individual over the age of 21 is free to drink as much alcohol as they want doesn't mean they can't get punched in the face for throwing up on some guys shoes.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? Then why is god in our pledge of allegience?? They don't do a good job at following their own rules do they?

Because when all that was made allmost everyone belonged to some branch of catholasism so it was thought everyone had some kind of god. Now keeping things mostly same is for historical reasons. Also remember that politics and religion go hand and hand and for the most part it is not necesarilly a bad thing as many of the foundations of law can be found in relegion but it can be use to justify bad laws.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

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 not arguing that people have a right to not be offended. There are going to be things that people say that will upset others, even when the speaker isn't being an asshole. Just a fact of life. But when someone goes around saying "Fuck this country, fuck these laws, fuck you all; I believe that these people should die" we're supposed to go "Well you have the right to say that"? The obviously don't care about the law, why should they be protected by it. It's like how criminals can get away with suing their intended victims because they were hurt in the attempt. They're criminals who obviously don't care about the laws, why should they have rights under them?

And I'm not saying that someone who says something that's unpopular or radical should be locked away. I'm just commenting on how people who despise the law are being protected by it; and I don't see why that is. You don't like the law? Fine, but don't expect for it to come to your rescue when you suddenly need it.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

Because people are fucking idiots.

 

[Dejawesp]

Do not use only part of my post and believe you are winning a point. "Freedom of Speech" isn't a law, it's a concept. There are consequences to what you say. This isn't related to the government. If I started talking about how bad my boss is at his job, I could get fired. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I'm safe from consequence of saying something.

The point of freedom of speech is to be free of GOVERNMENT consequences from expressing your opinion.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

That's the current, legal definition of freedom of speech. That's, arguably, not what freedom of speech actually is though. What is "true" freedom of speech depends on your interpretation of those words, the constitution, or the laws that address it.

Personally, I disagree with many of the laws in place that prohibit freedom of speech. My idea of what freedom of speech is differs from what the law says it is. That doesn't give me the legal excuse to break those laws of course, but I think it gives me a moral one. Legal doesn't equal moral and illegal doesn't equal immoral.

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.

Does shutting them up remove the bigotry and lies? Is it possible to shut those people up? Who or what is going to shut them up? The government? Governments are far from perfect you know, and by letting the government censor people for being hateful or lying, you are letting the government, a deeply flawed, corrupt entity define those things, which I'm honestly not very comfortable with.