What is Free Speach?

[Dude_Doc]

I like to look at myself as a supporter of true democracy and a supporter of all kinds of freedoms. But in recent days, even I have been questioning what free speach means, and if it has, or should have, limitations.

The thought is reflected on a real case. A priest in my country preached that homosexuality is a sin and that pedophiles have a history of being homosexual. Now, he didn't say this directly, but his speach underlined indirectly this meaning. He were charged with "offence against minority/society" (minority/society mostly meaning groups of people that belong either to ethnic or sexual affiliation). Yesterday, after two years of investigation and hearings, the charge against the priest was dropped.

At the same time, just a day before his release, a casette-record could be found in the store of Sweden's largest mosque in Stockholm. The casette had a preaching recorded on it speaking of a Jihad against Jews, plus comparing Jews to pigs and dogs.

Now, the question is: what should I be able to say in a democratic society? I myself are against any hate against both ethnic and sexual "groups". But should institutions like the church preach about "anti-homosexuality"? Should it be legal to hate other groups of people? And if laws were changed so that it became illegal to preach against ethnical groups and homosexuality, would there be other problems (built on these)? 

[Dante]

Freedom of speech is the right to say what you like about who you like. And unfortunately, that means everyone. It's hypocritical to say "everyone can say what they want, unless we don't like it." Therefore those who preach hatred will just have to keep going.

(If I ran the government, I'd make sure that saying things wasn't a crime, but doing things was. Also I'd frame anyone saying things I didn't like for other crimes and have them locked away, but that's just me...)

[Edric O]

Strictly speaking, free speech is the right to say whatever you want, anywhere you want.

The reasons why free speech might be a controversial issue are two in number:

1. Speech that can cause immediate harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre). The question is how immediate - and how big - must the harm be in order to justify restricting speech.

2. The mass dissemination of opinion. This is where the big controversy lies. Telling a couple of your friends that you think Jews are pigs is one thing; publishing a book or a recording or a film saying that Jews are pigs is a different matter entirely. All people (or almost all) have equal power of speech. Not all people, however, have equal power to disseminate their speech to a wide audience. The owner of a TV station or a publishing company has enourmous power to spread his own opinions, whereas the average citizen doesn't. How can we prevent abuse of this power? Well, we could censor the media, but that only transfers the power from the media itself to the censors, and doesn't solve anything (in fact, it can make things much worse by centralizing power in fewer hands).

I don't know of any good solution to the problem of media power. One possibility would be to replace the traditional media with the internet - because not anyone can create a TV station or newspaper, but anyone can make a website.

[Caid Ivik]

that is an interesting question: can we control at least our own speach, our own dissemination of opinions?

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html

[gunner154]

The world is a war of information. Whoever justifies his opinion wins, ideally. Whoever justifies the credibility of his information/facts wins too. Why use laws to restrict something so fundamental?

Of course, you need a critical and well-educated population in order to pull this off. *cough*

[Caid Ivik]

Criticism is just a way of spreading memes as well. Ie one deconstructionist can go much further than thousand perfect criticists. Information as a weapon, or to be more exact, a tool of warfare, is an interesting concept since 18th century, however then it was thought to be a tool to shape humans, to change them (hence education systems). In this view, an unjustifiable opinion has to be erased before it even took place in head! Germans (who else  :P ) have a perfect word for this, Menschenzucht. Free speech isn't a problem (from any perspective) if it is implemented with a sufficient effect. Like we can say about most western nations, but perhaps French or Swiss.

[The Spac]

With freespeach comes the ability for us to condem whatever someone might be saying. As a community.

[nemafakei]

Perhaps an expansion on Edric's first point, perhaps different points.

-Does free speech entitle us to conspire to or plan criminal activity?

Clearly, there's little problem if I don't have a right to say 'I'll threaten the cashier, you bring the bags, you, get the car ready outside'. But what about hate speech and incitement to violence? At the moment, in the UK, I can legally say 'Tomorrow, you should attack every Muslim you see'.

- Does free speech entitle us to lie?

I don't just mean say something untrue. I mean can I deliberately say something that I know to be false (humour excluded)? Should I be prosecuted for lying - or should I just not be guaranteed the same rights if I'm lying?

[Acriku]

Perhaps an expansion on Edric's first point, perhaps different points.

-Does free speech entitle us to conspire to or plan criminal activity?

Clearly, there's little problem if I don't have a right to say 'I'll threaten the cashier, you bring the bags, you, get the car ready outside'.

Talking from experience eh Nema? You're a trench coat-er after all. ;-)

I think they're allowed to say it, because they could be doing any number of things with that - such as joking, which I often do with my buddy since we work at a grocery that has been held up numerous of times, etc. However, in America, I believe this falls under conspiracy to burglary (where the act doesn't have to happen, but you can still be convicted for a lesser punishment). But that's what I think, anyway.

But what about hate speech and incitement to violence? At the moment, in the UK, I can legally say 'Tomorrow, you should attack every Muslim you see'.

- Does free speech entitle us to lie?

I don't just mean say something untrue. I mean can I deliberately say something that I know to be false (humour excluded)? Should I be prosecuted for lying - or should I just not be guaranteed the same rights if I'm lying?

It's hazy, but I would think inciting violence should be a crime since it disturbs the order of society. Lying, well there's no way in hell they would criminalize that. You wouldn't have enough jails to fit them all.

[nampigai]

this is freedom of speech:

http://www.denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,880218&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[faradn the corrino]

Free speech is a good thing, when people use it to say what they think about something or someone. For example, you can criticize your government.

But when someone lies or when someone is insulting in his speech, he must be stopped.

In a democracy, people have to live together, so we must respect everyone.

[ps501]

There is also a second side to free speach that I think we are ignoring.  There are times in the USA (and many other countries that support free speach) where free speach isn't tolerated. 

For instance, stating "I have bomb" on an aircraft

shouting "Fire - run for your lives" isn't tolerated in a crouded movie theatre

And in America

"Staring leudly, and repeatedly at the member of the opposite sex" can be construed to be sexual harassment - So not even speaking but just staring at another person isn't tolerated.

[Acriku]

Rights are guaranteed until they interfere with the rights of others. Such as, I have the right to wave my fists around, but I don't have the right to punch somebody in the face. I have the right to say the words, "Fire", but I don't have the right to yell it in a room with a lot of people.

[Edric O]

Rights are guaranteed until they interfere with the rights of others. Such as, I have the right to wave my fists around, but I don't have the right to punch somebody in the face.

Ah yes, one of the famous principles of liberalism - and so deeply flawed...

If your right to swing your fists stops where another person's body begins, what happens if a bunch of guys decide to make a circle around you? Their right not to be hit by you enables them to trap you - and, if they wish, enslave you.

(yes, I know this is off-topic, but I couldn't let the opportunity pass without expressing my opposition to the liberal conception of rights)

[faradn the corrino]

There is also a second side to free speach that I think we are ignoring.  There are times in the USA (and many other countries that support free speach) where free speach isn't tolerated. 

For instance, stating "I have bomb" on an aircraft

shouting "Fire - run for your lives" isn't tolerated in a crouded movie theatre

And in America

"Staring leudly, and repeatedly at the member of the opposite sex" can be construed to be sexual harassment - So not even speaking but just staring at another person isn't tolerated.

I didn't know it. If you want more examples, when someone speaks about ethnies, people always suspect him to be racist, in France.

That's stupid, but there are always taboos in a society.

[Acriku]

Ah yes, one of the famous principles of liberalism - and so deeply flawed...

If your right to swing your fists stops where another person's body begins, what happens if a bunch of guys decide to make a circle around you? Their right not to be hit by you enables them to trap you - and, if they wish, enslave you.

(yes, I know this is off-topic, but I couldn't let the opportunity pass without expressing my opposition to the liberal conception of rights)

That isn't a good analogy, since the law dictates that if you find yourself in pending danger, you are able to defend yourself. There are exceptions to everything, Edric.

[nemafakei]

Edric, in the case of being 'surrounded', they are still impinging on your freedom - and thus their freedom is compromised.