Why is 'Freedom of Speech' so misunderstood?

[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, people have every right to shut you up.

No. Just no.

People should have the right to have and express whatever opinion they have.

Nothing is a better cure against idiocy than letting angry and ignorant freely express their opinions out in the open were we can point out the fallacies and the irony.

And how else would be be able to recognize and properly appreciate the pearl of wisdom if not against the dark background of prejudice and ignorance?

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

I'm not talking simply unpopular opinions, but instances where people are given the spotlight for whatever reason, and are allowed to reach out to other angry people and take advantage of that.

Why should Fox News get away with half of the stuff they come out with? A good portion of it is simply made up, and people listen to them because they think its all true!

Its not about someone saying they don't like gays, its about someone saying to other people that gays are somehow wronging them, or that they're inferior, and creating that sort of huge tension in society that leads to persecution.

The concept of freedom of speech, and the American first amendment are different. When people talk about freedom of speech, it should mean freedom of speech. When people talk about the first amendment, it should mean that.

Just because people refer to the First Amendment as being "freedom of speech" doesn't mean it is.

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."

That's because Britain, like America, does not have freedom of speech

I was talking more the concept than legal right.

I'm an Irish atheist so last year's blasphemy laws really hit home the fact that I'm not living with free speech.

What were the blasphemy laws?

 

[Mittens The Kitten]

people are dumb...

People are dumb? Relative to what? There isnt anything out there that's smarter than people.

Correction time...

THE MASSES are dumb, WHEN COMPARED TO THE FEW WHO HAVE TO LOOK AFTER THEM.

(you are forgetting that humans are actually the third most intelligent species on Earth. Stephen Fry said so himself...)

How is any one person not a part of "the masses"? Or is it that YOU aren't a part of the masses by virtue of being you?

 

[Calcium]

The impression I got from (some) members of the Escapist was that it was free liscense to harass and threaten someone. Basically used as a way of legalised trolling. I'm glad you made this post though; it's lightened some of my views on America.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

Because you are free to misunderstand it.

 

[IncredibleTurnip]

My favorites are the people who think "Shut up, you idiot" is an infringement upon their free speech, rather than the practice of ones own.

 

[Redingold]

I can publicly announce that I think President George W. Bush or President Barrack Obama, to be fair and give an example from both political sides, is a raving, psychotic, Nazi-loving maniac (though I don't feel that way towards either man) and I won't get arrested, though I may suffer some fallout and catch some flack for my beliefs. If I were to say that either of them was a raving, psychotic, Nazi-loving maniac, then I might get into trouble for slander or libel, depending on which medium I made that announcement in. That's how Glenn Beck gets away with the crazy crap he says, by 'asking question' instead of making statements.

I don't follow this. How is saying that they are raving, psychotic, Nazi-loving maniacs not a defamation of character or a false, malicious statement? If that's not slander, why would it be to say that they were?

It's all about the wording. For him to say he thinks President whoever is Nazi-loving etc. etc. etc. That's makes it an opinion and he can't be persecuted for having an opinion. However if he were to just go around saying that President whoever is a Nazi etc. etc. etc. as if it were fact, that makes it slander and he can be prosecuted for it.

Ah, I see. I didn't read the word think. Cheers.

 

[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.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

people are dumb...

People are dumb? Relative to what? There isnt anything out there that's smarter than people.

Correction time...

THE MASSES are dumb, WHEN COMPARED TO THE FEW WHO HAVE TO LOOK AFTER THEM.

(you are forgetting that humans are actually the third most intelligent species on Earth. Stephen Fry said so himself...)

How is any one person not a part of "the masses"? Or is it that YOU aren't a part of the masses by virtue of being you?

I'm not part of the masses by the virtue of not believing every single bloody thing fed to me by popular opinion or by biased, sensationalist media. I'm not saying I am alone in this, but there's little denying that when it comes to public affairs and issues the vast majority are just stupid and gullible. If they weren't then why would Newspapers be able to sell millions of copies through headlines that demonstrate thus.

 

[Mittens The Kitten]

Ok, so you're some kind of genius rebel, playing by you own rules regardless of what the stupid peons or "the man" says you gotta beleive?

 

[FenrirsWilly]

People are stupid, stupid should hurt

(A person is capable of being either smart or stupid, but a group of persons, aka people, tend to be inherently stupid, the mob mentality is not conducive to intelligent decisions)

 

[Canid117]

"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.

 

[Dejawesp]

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

Well in that case we don't need laws limiting peoples freedom of speech to feel safe.

Dangerous people are still dangerous people even if we don't let them mention just how crazy they are. Its just that now they catch us by surprise instead.

 

[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?

 

[Woodsey]

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.

 

[Dejawesp]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Cavan]

One of the reasons to like being English.
Freedom of speech is abused beyond belief, and the amount of people willing to defend the people abusing it while at the same time believing it somehow improves America's culture by doing so make me laugh. Your examples of public insults and saying crazy things are things I feel emphasize my point.
I did not realise that it was widely misunderstood, but then I care more about the people who are using it correctly to get away with things.

wen 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.

And I do worry that these groups you allow to organise and grow and 'lawfully' find like minded people are far from harmless eccentrics who will not then go on to commit crimes against the people the law allows them to publically and very loudly hate, I also worry about your state of mind regarding sensible people.

 

[Verlander]

The concept of freedom of speech, and the American first amendment are different. When people talk about freedom of speech, it should mean freedom of speech. When people talk about the first amendment, it should mean that.

Just because people refer to the First Amendment as being "freedom of speech" doesn't mean it is.

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."

That's because Britain, like America, does not have freedom of speech

I was talking more the concept than legal right.

I'm an Irish atheist so last year's blasphemy laws really hit home the fact that I'm not living with free speech.

I hear you, blasphemy law is the same as banning a religion, it's ridiculous

 

[Woodsey]

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.

I'm sure that irony's hilarious when they're lynching people and burning down their houses. Just because they're a bunch of fucking idiots doesn't mean we can let them go unchecked, because soon enough, people who are sensible will hear one too many pieces of bullshit and start to think that maybe they're right. Other people's safety and well-being comes before someone else's severely misguided viewpoints.