Free speech: Minimal regulation and censorship?

[Ceicei]

There are some who say free speech (or rather, the expression of thought as spoken or by action) should be totally unregulated. We've had discussion on MartialTalk in a different thread discussing the burning of the American Flag. Others feel there should be some levels of restriction, especially when it comes to the safety and/or reputation of a person or groups of people. We've seen situations where a person may say something in public and then receive swift warnings (and sometimes loss of employment).

There is a different kind going on: college campus gossip. The arguments listed in the article (linked below) says that gossip should be restricted to protect reputations, others say it is a form of free speech--just words. This reminds me of the old adage: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." On a superficial level, this quote may be true... but on a deeper level, words can be quite powerful (balanced by another saying, "A pen is a mighty sword").

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/18/juicy.website.ap/index.html

What is free speech? What are the boundaries? How should this be regulated and also be protected?

- Ceicei

 

[LuzRD]

What is free speech? What are the boundaries? How should this be regulated and also be protected?
- Ceicei

IMO free speech (in this context) is the right to not be prosecuted, persecuted or otherwise punished for voicing ones thoughts or oppinions (this does not include knowingly making false statements that can have a direct negative effect)


i feel the boundaries are limited only by directly affecting someone in a way that is unsubstantiated. that is if you say/write somthing as true that is directly about someone else (as in the case of the juicycampus site in your link) that can/does have a negative effect and cant be proven (even by simple probable cause) it crosses the boundary. if the things on the (anonymous in this case) website are verifiable or explained to be oppinion then its "fair".

no oppinion at this time about how this could/should be protected.



im curious how others will respond as i think this is a topic alot of people have very different oppinions on.

 

[newGuy12]

The most important thing about free speech is to be able to say bad things about the government. That is the most important part, to be able to give criticism about elected officials and policy!

 

[LuzRD]

The most important thing about free speech is to be able to say bad things about the government. That is the most important part, to be able to give criticism about elected officials and policy!

absolutely! and i exercise that right frequently

 

[Steel Tiger]

What is free speech? What are the boundaries? How should this be regulated and also be protected?

One could argue that free speech is the right to say whatever you bloody well choose and it is the potential listeners who choose to take it on board or not. But that smacks of a degree of irresponsibility to me. Free speech should allow a citizen to voice their disapproval of something within their nation. A person should know that they can say whatever they might feel like, but they should also understand that there are times to be circumspect. Its one thing to say that a politician is performing badly, but it is an entirely different thing to imply that poor performance results from of a drug or alcohol problem because of rumours(if there is concrete evidence, that's another thing again).

Now down here is Australia we have a different take on free speech. It is not a right protected by the constitution (except in the case of political communication which has an implied protection) so censorship can be imposed and the government has asked the media to self censor on a few occassions to protect the right of defendants' to trial by jury (protected in ther constitution). But those who did not abide by the censure were not prosecuted.

Free speech is more a tradition generally dealt with by the civil courts. No one has ever been presecuted for saying a politician has done a bad job and doubt anyone will be. Bizarrely, the most control on free speech is applied by football codes on their members, but it is a contractual position not a constitutional one.

IMO free speech (in this context) is the right to not be prosecuted, persecuted or otherwise punished for voicing ones thoughts or oppinions (this does not include knowingly making false statements that can have a direct negative effect)

The most important thing about free speech is to be able to say bad things about the government. That is the most important part, to be able to give criticism about elected officials and policy!

I have to agree with both these statements. Free speech is about not becoming a totalitarian state. It is a release valve that constantly eases pressure within a society when it cannot reconcile its opinions with its laws or representatives. Shouting, moaning, protesting, rally, and marching are time-honoured methods of voicing disappointment and disapporoval. But such things should never give in to violence, as it has in both Australia and the US in the past, because that begins to open the door to power-mongers and control freaks who would have no one voice an opinion that was not properly sponsored and vetted.

I'm sorry if that was a bit long-winded, but the subject of free speech is interesting and, in my opinion, vitally important to a free society.

 

[Ray]

In the beginning (I think it was from Taoism...certainly in the OT) there were few or no rules because everyone "just knew" what the right thing to do was. It was only after people fell from their state of innocence that we need rules and boundaries.

 

[Cryozombie]

See... I think there is a line... somewhere. I mean... I'm all for free speech, but some actions really aren't although we try and protect them as such.

IMO:
It's Free speech to say "I hate america"
But its NOT Free Speech to burn a flag. Burning a flag is an action, not speech... its end result is... well, igniting a piece of cloth.

Sure you say... the INTENT is to make a statement... but by that same token my right to burn down a Mosque should apply then, no? No of course not.
​

 

[Big Don]

Ideally there should only be two restrictions on free speech:
One: You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre, etc.
Two: Honesty should be important.
Political Correctness is anathema to free speech.

 

[LuzRD]

IMO:
It's Free speech to say "I hate america"
But its NOT Free Speech to burn a flag. Burning a flag is an action, not speech... its end result is... well, igniting a piece of cloth.

Sure you say... the INTENT is to make a statement... but by that same token my right to burn down a Mosque should apply then, no? No of course not.
​

even if you owned your own mosque its not the same. (yes i know you were making a point, but it wasnt exactly apples and apples if ya know what i mean ).

 

[Cryozombie]

even if you owned your own mosque its not the same. (yes i know you were making a point, but it wasnt exactly apples and apples if ya know what i mean ).

Well, it kinda is... but on a bigger scale... I mean in both cases Im burning a physical object for political reasons... but I get where you are coming from.

 

[Kacey]

Based on the article you posted, the question is not can people speak without censorship, but can people speak untruths - especially hurtful untruths - without censorship.

From a related article in Newsweek:

JuicyCampus—whose Duke-graduate founder, Matt Ivestor, declined to comment for this story—isn't sponsored by the schools it covers, so administrators can't regulate it. Neither does the law. Such sites are protected by a federal law that immunizes Web hosts from liability for the musings of their users—as long as the hosts themselves don't modify content. (And firmly establishing the identity of an individual poster would be next to impossible.) The rationale is to protect big companies like AOL from the actions of each and every user. But as a consequence, it means victims of a damaged rep have little legal recourse. "Courts tend to have antiquated understandings of privacy," says Daniel Solove, an expert in cyberlaw and the author of "The Future of Reputation." "Until that changes, we're going to see this keep happening.

The problem then becomes, who determines what is, and is not, an untruth? What is, and is not, hurtful? What about hurtful truths?

In an ideal world, people would state only truth, and would refrain from speaking if they would hurt another... in the past, such restraint was backed up by honor, respect, societal rules, and if necessary, fists and guns.

In our less than ideal world, especially the world of the internet, it is much too easy to say things that are both hurtful and untrue, protected by the anonymity of the internet. Many people say things from the safety of that anonymity that they would never say in person - for fear of the repercussions that would follow, if nothing else.

Do I think we should have censorship? In an ideal world, no. But in our current world, until the internet society's sense of propriety catches up with the sense of propriety such incidents as those above offend, until people start treating others as they want others to treat them, censorship, and the legal ramifications thereof, are going to be needed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People in the US are free to say what they will.

They are also free to be held accountable should they speak untruths (libel/slander/defamation of character)

The US's "right to free speech" is for US citizens. It doesn't apply to non-American's.
Other nations have their own ideas on what is and isn't allowed.

"Freedom of Speech" as defined by the US Constitution only applies to the government controlling it. Private and Public entities (such as this forum, a karate school, an employer and a home owner/parent) are free to control speech, and penalize within reason.

Most people who scream loudly about their rights being violated, in reality understand those rights and the responsibilities they require, the least.

 

[SageGhost83]

The problem with free speech is that people take it too far at times. They will knowingly say something that is offensive and when they are confronted about it, they will say that it is their constitutional right. Some people take freedom of speech to mean that they can say whatever they want to whoever they want regardless of how offensive and downright hurtful it is and claim that it is protected under the constitution. In today's age of popular misguided youth counter culture and uber-liberalism I think that there must be regulation and censorship in place or tensions will boil over to the point that we will start to see increasing violent exchanges or, god forbid, a second civil war. Homogenous communities can get away with freedom of speech because there is a dominant, shared culture that instills an understanding across the board of what is tolerable and what is across the line. There is multiculturalism and the "everybody is right in their own way" mentality in America and free speech is likely to cause more trouble in such an environment. Until we all truly come together as one nation and one culture in America, then free speech needs to be regulated and there needs to be censorship, lest we offend each other to the point that it balkanizes the country even further and creates myriad violent exchanges.

 

[Empty Hands]

Until we all truly come together as one nation and one culture in America, then free speech needs to be regulated and there needs to be censorship, lest we offend each other to the point that it balkanizes the country even further and creates myriad violent exchanges.

*sigh* I will just say that tensions never go away and bad ideologies (like Nazism) never disappear from being forbidden to talk about them. That just creates resentment, persecution complexes, and an ongoing mystique.

 

[LuzRD]

I think that there must be regulation and censorship in place or tensions will boil over

i feel that the flipside of this holds true, over regulation and censorship can boil very quickly. and keeping with the boiling metaphor, when somthing boils quickly it boils violently.

regulation and censorship would not be needed if people were more mature and educated (meaning that if we learned to ignore someone that says somthing we dont like, instead of trying to control them the issue would already be resolved by understanding that everyone has an oppinion and it CAN be different from everyone elses (the beautiful thing about America actually is that it was founded with the understanding that people have rights)).


the way that ive always viewed issues such as these is, the government should not regulate or try and control people that are not directly affecting anyone in a negative way (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that).
this oppinion is aimed more at the time money and effort wasted making sure that there are no "bad words" on broadcast tv and radio stations and other trivial nonsense. and not aimed at prosecuting those that would yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" in an airport and the like.

 

[SageGhost83]

i feel that the flipside of this holds true, over regulation and censorship can boil very quickly. and keeping with the boiling metaphor, when somthing boils quickly it boils violently.

regulation and censorship would not be needed if people were more mature and educated (meaning that if we learned to ignore someone that says somthing we dont like, instead of trying to control them the issue would already be resolved by understanding that everyone has an oppinion and it CAN be different from everyone elses (the beautiful thing about America actually is that it was founded with the understanding that people have rights)).


the way that ive always viewed issues such as these is, the government should not regulate or try and control people that are not directly affecting anyone in a negative way (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that).
this oppinion is aimed more at the time money and effort wasted making sure that there are no "bad words" on broadcast tv and radio stations and other trivial nonsense. and not aimed at prosecuting those that would yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" in an airport and the like.

Hmmm, I see. I didn't think about it in that way. I stand corrected. I guess that we as a nation will have to find some sort of middle ground. My proposed solution would only make things far worse. Empty Hands, you are right too - tensions will never go away. More education on the part of the people (and some more personal responsibility coupled with maturity) would do far more good than censorship. If there are really serious beefs there, then people are going to communicate their feelings and get their point across to each other no matter what. Censorship would only turn up the temperature on the boiler and make us all hotter under the collar. So, I am thinking that it is more of a people to people thing and less of a government to people thing now. People just need to learn some good ole manners and have more respect for each other.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Two quick points that I would be happy to elaborate on further when I have time:

1. Today's generation is no better or worse than any other in history regarding what a person will say.

2. You can't have governmental cencorship "until people learn better." Once you give the government that power, they will never give it back. That is that nature of government.