The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

'freedom of speech'

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Lucylu » March 11th, 2015, 6:25 pm

Doesn't the idea of total freedom of speech seem a little naïve or even primitive- similar to the idealistic idea that we should all be able to walk around naked? In theory it is sound but the reality is very different. There is a vast difference between accepting that everyone has different bodies, and skin tone and clothing, to actually allowing people to walk around in all their glory!

Humans are very sensitive to images and ideas and language- which is evidenced by all the young people being groomed today by the Islamic State terrorists and other cults or paedophiles. Neuro linguistic programming is central to our belief systems.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Okisites » March 12th, 2015, 3:38 am

MHopcroft1963 wrote:I'm not going to quote Logicus, but one could make a case that all speech is political in that it either promotes or challenges an established norm in society. Even if it's Madonna saying lovers should "Express" themselves sexually, Katy Perry saying people shouldn't be upset when girls kiss each other, or Billy Joel lamenting that "Catholic girls start much too late" (he has since become a major benefactor of Catholic charities, so evidently there are no hard feelings). That all three of my examples are about sex is deliberate, because as long as there has been the concept of Freedom of Speech sex has considered by many a topic to which Freedom of Speech does not apply.
What do you think about free speech which potentially go against the political goal of the politicians, which can seriously influence their political goal, or corporate goal? After all it is said that "Freedom of speech" is intended to make such speeches or propagate such ideas which can go against political will, desires etc. I think if it is true, then it "Freedom of speech" provided by the constituion must provide for this condition successfully. Is there something that surely suggests "Freedom of Speech" can be successfully exhibited against the government? Also, is there something in the system whic can be used to obstruct people to use freedom of speech against the government?


One more question: Do you think Freedom of Speech is confused with Freedom of Expression?

-- Updated 12 Mar 2015, 14:24 to add the following --
Lucylu wrote:Doesn't the idea of total freedom of speech seem a little naïve or even primitive- similar to the idealistic idea that we should all be able to walk around naked? In theory it is sound but the reality is very different. There is a vast difference between accepting that everyone has different bodies, and skin tone and clothing, to actually allowing people to walk around in all their glory!
What is "total freedom of speech"? Are you confusing freedom of speech with freedom of expression?
Humans are very sensitive to images and ideas and language- which is evidenced by all the young people being groomed today by the Islamic State terrorists and other cults or paedophiles.
This is freedom of speech to talk against the powerful people, society, group who can use their powers of authority, violence and make you suffer. I think freedom of speech is all about logically propagate the idea, thoughts, opinions or the criticism of the same, and if you are doing it illogically or forcefully then it maybe an opposition of freedom of speech, or just a freedom of expression which is very less valuable than freedom of speech. What do you think?
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Lucylu » March 12th, 2015, 5:49 pm

Okisites wrote:This is freedom of speech to talk against the powerful people, society, group who can use their powers of authority, violence and make you suffer. I think freedom of speech is all about logically propagate the idea, thoughts, opinions or the criticism of the same, and if you are doing it illogically or forcefully then it maybe an opposition of freedom of speech, or just a freedom of expression which is very less valuable than freedom of speech. What do you think?
So where is the line exactly? We may say freedom of speech is a human right, but if the opinions held in peaceful protest are not listened to, (by a Government for example) then what is left other than violence or disaffection? How valuable is the right to speak if we know we will be only be placated and ignored? Is it really the right to speak that we want or the right to have our beliefs respected and to have our way? How do we know we are right?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Okisites » March 13th, 2015, 6:17 am

Lucylu wrote:
Okisites wrote:This is freedom of speech to talk against the powerful people, society, group who can use their powers of authority, violence and make you suffer. I think freedom of speech is all about logically propagate the idea, thoughts, opinions or the criticism of the same, and if you are doing it illogically or forcefully then it maybe an opposition of freedom of speech, or just a freedom of expression which is very less valuable than freedom of speech. What do you think?
So where is the line exactly? We may say freedom of speech is a human right, but if the opinions held in peaceful protest are not listened to, (by a Government for example) then what is left other than violence or disaffection? How valuable is the right to speak if we know we will be only be placated and ignored? Is it really the right to speak that we want or the right to have our beliefs respected and to have our way? How do we know we are right?
It has to be started peacefully, but it should not be a protest, to be considered as freedom of speech. If it is just a protest, and on the basis of some emotions, some unclear thoughts, some social or religious indoctrination, then it is just an expression, just like facial expressions, which is not deliberate, but just a result of some emotions, indoctrination, mindset, influences etc. So it is a expression and covered in freedom of expression, and many times it is objected and curtailed, even law is made to restrict unwanted kind of expression.

So protest is an expression, if it is not based on proper logic, indepth thoughts, and generally protests are not based on valid thoughts or logic, and maybe a result of lack of information, and those who have logic do not protest but tend to explain things. And if you are thinking that people explains and then protest, then for that I think there must be some problem with logic there, because of which it is not listened, or you don’t know how to get your logic across. And use of violence, after a protest, I don’t think is right and needed to be stopped at all cost.

Valid logical expression is generally heard carefully, and if people or government doesn’t like it, they try to suppress it by whatever means they have. People may protest, society may condemn, government may try to put the speaker in jail by some charges if not related to what he/she said but it is heard because it can make changes. Logic(Logical expression) bring changes, beginning from perception, understanding to knowledge, and some people don’t like it, and oppose it, even violently. Those who like it support it. But it is never go unheard and without response, if it makes addition to understanding and useful. Only illogical or baseless assertions go unheard, not only by government, but anybody. Nobody care what you think if it is not cleared properly. So IMO, this is what is called Freedom of Speech and its difference from Freedom of Expression, though they both sound similar.

IMO, there maybe some situation when valid logical expression left unheard/ignored but most of the time it is situational.

So what I wanted to say is that, if Government is not listening to you or anybody, first thing to do is check the logic behind your opinion how important and well grounded it is, then afterward whether it is properly cleared, explained and propagated to interested people first, and if you think someone is trying to stop you from propagating then think about violence against the one/people who is trying to stop.

Though it seems that I said it very authoritatively, but all are just my opinions.

Thank You, Okisites.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

User avatar
MHopcroft1963
Posts: 62
Joined: January 9th, 2015, 11:33 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by MHopcroft1963 » March 15th, 2015, 5:59 pm

Okisites wrote:One more question: Do you think Freedom of Speech is confused with Freedom of Expression?
I'm not convinced there's a difference. After all, Speech is nothing if not an Expression of one's ideas, desires and hopes.

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Okisites » March 24th, 2015, 5:31 am

MHopcroft1963 wrote:
Okisites wrote:One more question: Do you think Freedom of Speech is confused with Freedom of Expression?
I'm not convinced there's a difference. After all, Speech is nothing if not an Expression of one's ideas, desires and hopes.
I am sorry MHopcroft1963 for getting late to reply. Actually I neglected to reply for 2 days due to lack of time, after your reply and then onwards from 19th march my net connection goes down. So here is my opinion if you like to continue...

First of all it is all my opinion and doesn't have any base on any kind or readings. I find Freedom of Speech different from Freedom of Expression, as maybe court cannot use the both phrases for the same meaning, as what I can feel.

As you rightly said that "Speech is nothing if not an Expression of one's ideas, desires and hopes", but can you say the same thing in a different way, like "Expression is nothing if not an Speech of one's ideas, desiresa nd hopes". I find that Speech is certainly an Expression, but Expression is not necessarily an Speech. Expression can be many more things like an Art, Fiction or something which is of no apparent use.Whereas I perceive "speech" as something with more reasoning, and is very useful in many ways as suggested before by other posters.

So my understanding of these two i.e. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, lies in my understanding of meanings of Speech and Expression. Secondly there are some freedoms which are curtailed, while others were not. So, I think there must be some kind of freedom of expression which gets curtailed, while other kinds should not be curtailed. There must be some conditions, as per constitution I think. What are these "Kinds" refers to? Which kind of freedom of expression/speech is curtailed and which kind does not, and what is the rationale behind it?

In all these questions lies my definition of Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Expression and the difference between them. Do you think there is a difference between different kind of Freedom of Expression, and some has to be curtailed. If so which ones, and why?

Thank you, Okisites.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

User avatar
MHopcroft1963
Posts: 62
Joined: January 9th, 2015, 11:33 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by MHopcroft1963 » March 26th, 2015, 6:56 pm

I'm not going to quote your post at length, but I cannot grasp how other art forms fail to qualify as Speech. If there is a distinction between Speech and Expression for First Amendment purposes, it is a meaningless one.

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Okisites » March 27th, 2015, 1:08 pm

MHopcroft1963 wrote:I'm not going to quote your post at length, but I cannot grasp how other art forms fail to qualify as Speech. If there is a distinction between Speech and Expression for First Amendment purposes, it is a meaningless one.
I would like to refer you to one article. Please read first 3 paragraphs. Here it is:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... +of+Speech

Okay it seems that the word "speech" and "expression" is not properly defined in Law and is probably used interchangeably. But I make clear distinction between the two, where "speech" means only those expressions which is supported by some kind arguments, logic and rationale, and "expression" can be anything with or without these. Speech can be expression but expression cannot necessarily be speech.

I think there can be many type of expressions, and many of them are liable to be curtailed, except those who are well supported by arguments, logical expression which is verifiable, refutable through arguments and logic etc. So I think such kind of expression as speech and believe that it cannot be curtailed at any cost. I think there is a danger of suppression of truth in curtailing any such kind of expression which is supported by logical arguments and can be verified and accepted or refuted by logical arguments. I am pretty sensitive about such kind of freedom of speech being curtailed by anyway.

Every other kind of freedom of expression can be curtailed on many grounds. You can see it everywhere that some freedom of expression is prohibited, censored etc., even in this forum. Many books, many art works had been banned. The common thing about them is that they are all fictious, baseless books, and considered as giving bad influence, wrong values, dangerous ideas etc. Generally civilized society(rational people) do not prohibit freedom of speech on the basis of logical argument, though primitive culture do prohibit and ban arguments on specific issues.

So as for your question, arts generally do not present full range of arguments and logic behind their expressed ideas. Those are all generally assertions, just stupidity or something based on emotions and cannot express logic fully. So therefore, IMO, arts do not qualify as speech, but only as an expression. And speech is what is important, not just the expression.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

Simon says...
Posts: 738
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 3:24 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Simon says... » April 21st, 2015, 11:43 am

Lucylu wrote:Doesn't the idea of total freedom of speech seem a little naïve or even primitive- similar to the idealistic idea that we should all be able to walk around naked? In theory it is sound but the reality is very different. There is a vast difference between accepting that everyone has different bodies, and skin tone and clothing, to actually allowing people to walk around in all their glory!
Whilst I am not aware of any particular culture in which it is socially acceptable to walk around completely naked, there are many cultures throughout the world and throughout history who's perception of nudity differs significantly from ours. In fact, what is and what isn't socially acceptable in terms of clothing has changed more than pretty much everything else. For example, take an era that many believe to be very strict on clothing such as the early middle ages in Europe. It was not socially acceptable to wear only your under tunic & braies on a hot day in public (which is a damn site more clothing than you'll see at any local swimming pool in the 21st century), however, if you were seen in such a state, the reaction was not one of shock, but rather one of moral indignation i.e. "put some damn clothes on man! have you NO modesty!". The idea was not that the human body was something to feel ashamed of. Quite the opposite in fact, they believed man was created in god's own image after all. However, to bare all without covering up at all, was to display an intolerable arrogance that was seen as particularly sinful. If anything, this is the polar opposite to the reaction to nudity today. We are not morally offended by seeing a person naked, rather, we are shocked because we have been taught that our bodies are something repulsive to others and so they must be hidden away. If you don't believe me, simply drop your trousers & boxers in a public place and see how many people yell, "urgh! gross! put it away!". Personally, I prefer to medieval approach! To the medievals, the body was not hidden out of shame but out of a need to avoid an excess of pride. In other words, they revered the human body more than we do! (This is not unlike some ideas in modern Islam) Food for thought!

My point is that the perception of nudity is generally what a culture makes it to be. Cultures that are used to seeing nudity on a daily basis rarely have any problems with it. Why wear clothes if the climate is warm enough not to bother? Given that our perception of nudity has passed from one extreme to the other many times over, it is not impossible to imagine that one day we may change again to such a state where we really do not care anymore.
Lucylu wrote:Humans are very sensitive to images and ideas and language- which is evidenced by all the young people being groomed today by the Islamic State terrorists and other cults or paedophiles. Neuro linguistic programming is central to our belief systems.
That individuals are often suggestible is indeed the biggest problem with freedom of speech. However, let us examine the extreme alternative first. Again, let's go back to our friends the medievals. Under feudalism, there is nothing that we would recognize today as freedom of speech for the peasant on a national level. Legislation consists of one vote, the King's, and what he allows his Dukes, Earls & Barons to do to the serfs that he *owns*. In the absence of freedom of speech, were medieval peasants free from malicious manipulation, suggestion and propaganda? Of course not. The catholic church was more than capable of brainwashing Europe's population both common and noble alike into believing all sorts of nonsensical things. Peasant rebellions were often quelled not merely by military force but also by convincing the people that the people needed the overlord in order to thrive (even if that wasn't the case). A lack of freedom of speech does not free you from the malicious words of others, it merely changes where these malicious words are coming from.

Now lets look at your specific examples. Islamic State is very good at getting into the heads of young male Muslims of certain backgrounds. A lot of said people are coming from areas that are already segregated from mainstream society, and which are feeling victimized by it. In fact it is this victim complex that organizations like Islamic state feeds upon and exploits. One component of the problem is that western society is not always as hospitable to Muslims as it could be. This is entirely inexcusable, yet also entirely understandable, in the wake of horrific terrorist attacks like 9/11 & 7/7. Few sensible people feel that every Muslim is a terrorist. However, the mere possibility is enough to scare people into treating Muslims differently, and this is a problem, because it leaves many young Muslims with what I call a victim complex, where they feel they are constantly seen as the monsters they are not, and this fosters a lot of unnecessary hostility and anger towards western civilization, which organizations like IS are very good at inflaming and exploiting, turning these young Muslims into the very monsters that they were wrongly accused to being in the first place. The fault lies both with the west and with IS. What we desperately need to do is make sure that 1- Muslims feel WELCOME in the west, this will diffuse any hostile resentment before it even begins, but also 2- That NO religion is beyond criticism, and just as we should condemn & fight those who kill in the name of Christianity or Judaism, so too will we condemn & fight those who kill in the name of Islam.

I have little to say on the subject of pedophilia where free speech is concerned other than to say that it should be up to children's PARENTS what their children are and are not exposed to. I sincerely believe it should be a right to publish a philosophical argument that it is somehow ok to have sex with children, just as it is also a right for the rest of us to completely ignore said argument as the BS it most likely is. That said, I do not think that all children are complete simpletons. I think that if you educate children about the dangers of certain kinds of people, they will probably understand better than you think, and avoid listening to said people more often.

Wilson
Posts: 1499
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Wilson » April 21st, 2015, 2:32 pm

"Freedom of speech" is a legal term. Governments set certain restrictions of what sort of speech is allowed, but a government committed to free speech prohibits only those expressions considered harmful to others.

But the term is often misused. If someone makes a public statement, and as a result loses his job, or his business is boycotted, there may be an outcry about his freedom of speech being abridged. That's not really true. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you are immune to bad consequences (justified or not) from other people, only that the government is not allowed to punish you for that speech.

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Steve3007 » November 7th, 2018, 10:07 am

This is a re-boot of an existing "freedom of speech" thread. Some issues to consider:

I think a widely accepted view of this concept is that people should be free to say whatever they like so long as it does not constitute telling factual lies about people (slander and libel), does not constitute an incitement to violence or other infringement of people's safety and liberty and does not incite various other forms of unrest that are likely to cause harm ("shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre" being the classic example).

Are these kinds of criteria clear-cut enough to be able to create unambiguous legislation that can clearly show when the words spoken ought to be deemed criminal?

In the UK, very recently, there has been a case of some people who, in the garden of their own home, set fire to a model of a residential tower block (Grenfell Tower) in West London which burned down, a while ago, with the loss of many lives. Outrage was expressed and the people were arrested. Why should they be arrested, yet people who set fire to an effigy of a human being called Guy Fawkes, every year on November 5th, are allowed to do so freely?

Suppose you are walking along the street with your 12 year old daughter and a man comes up to you and screams at you and your daughter that, as a matter of objective fact, you and your daughter are stinking negro apes. Should this act be regarded as criminal? Would it be different if he said it in a quieter voice? Would it make a difference if he said it via the medium of the internet?

Does freedom of speech apply only to words, or could it include images? Suppose this man were to send your 12 year old daughter a photograph of his penis via the internet? Is he simply exercising his lawful right to free speech and your daughter is perfectly free to ignore this picture? If he described to her his penis using words, would this make a difference?

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Steve3007 » November 8th, 2018, 3:21 am

A statement to @Dachshund

The poster who calls himself @Dachshund has stated that the 12 year old daughter of my partner is a stinking negro sub-human ape who would, if he had his way, not be allowed to live in the country in which she was born because he believes that that country should be occupied exclusively by white people, of whom only the males should be allowed to vote. He further believes that certain religious groups in that country should be clearly marked by being forced to wear an identifying symbol, such as an armband. He claims some of these things as scientific facts and not merely opinion. These are not things that he has merely implied or hinted or quoted someone else as saying. They are things that he has explicitly said, of which he has taken ownership and he appears to be proud of this, citing them as examples of his bravery and the weakness of people who challenge them. He appears to think that it is hysterical left wing nonsense to conclude from this that he bears any resemblance to a Nazi. He claims that these views simply make him a mainstream conservative. He claims that saying these things (anonymously) constitutes being honest and brave and that denying them constitutes being a female herd animal.

I have offered to bring my partner and her 12 year old daughter to personally meet @Dachshund (who says that his real forename is John and that he lives in Hertfordshire when in the UK) so he can explain these "scientific facts" about them directly to their faces. If he reveals to me his personal contact details then I will reveal mine to him and we can setup this face-to-face meeting. He has so far declined to do that, but the offer still stands.

If he is too cowardly to face the people whom he abuses, then an alternative course of action for @Dachshund is to publicly apologize for his abuse of them. In particular, I would require an unconditional apology for the child abuse and acknowledgment that this kind of anonymous abuse does not constitute being brave and individualistic. It is simply abuse.

I have not allowed this 12 year old child to see these remarks about her by @Dachshund. If I did, they would undoubtedly cause her harm, in the way that other forms of online child abuse also cause harm. Most decent parents, to some extent, try to shield children from the worst of the monsters of this world and only gradually introduce them to the world's horrors as they grow and gain the emotional strength and intellectual tools to deal with them and face them. I think most decent parents probably debate with themselves the extent to which they should reveal to their young children the fact that not all adults in the world wish them well, and that some would like to hurt them in ways that they cannot, at their age and in the caring environment that they are fortunate enough to find themselves, dream could be possible.

To paraphrase W.B. Yeats: The world is, indeed, more full of weeping than they can understand. But they'll have to understand it soon enough.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Burning ghost » November 8th, 2018, 5:10 am

Steve -

If he believes he is stating “facts” then he should produce them with references. He cannot and so won’t. If he is expressing his opinion that is all it is.

He could provide more details of the kind of thinking that led him to his position and I’d encourage him to do so in order to question it. He may refuse to question his thoughts, but someone teetering between his opinion and yours will likely be inclined to shift more toward the rational argument rather than play to the use of crude language employed by Sausage Dog.

He is a boon to this site because everywhere else I imagine he’d be banned. It is a good thing that here we can have, albeit stunted, discussions with someone like this.

When I make level and rational points to him he doesn’t respond. You’ve presented a challenge to him here and if he’s up to the task we’ll see soon enough. I do believe some of his comments have been made to provoke what he deems as “leftist extremism” when I don’t imagine anyone here is a radical leftist willing to kill, maim and murder - some people here I find quite strange and even naively dangerous, but that is the joy of this site and I am sure others find my words quite disturbing at times (as would I if read in a certain light; that is my problem to work on!)
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Steve3007 » November 8th, 2018, 6:03 am

Burning ghost wrote:If he believes he is stating “facts” then he should produce them with references. He cannot and so won’t
The defence of "I am simply stating facts" is not good enough. We all know it to be a fact that homo sapiens is a species of animal and is a member of the family called "Great Apes". We all know it to be a fact that we share a very large percentage of our DNA with rats, and even with cockroaches. But when people in the past have used comparisons with rats and cockroaches to stir up inter-tribal hatred, they cannot fall back on the defence that they were simply stating facts. We all, I hope, know this too.

In a different context, ThomasHobbes used this very same "I am simply stating facts" defence:

viewtopic.php?p=316043#p316043
Mass hysteria in this case is a set of lies offered to us by a media which is comprised of right wingers. Many of them Jewish, or in business with Jews.
And I pulled him up on it.

He is no doubt correct to state that many people in the media are "in business with Jews". I am, presumably, "in business with Jews" myself. I don't know, because I don't generally ask people. But clearly the statement quoted above was trying to make a point about Jews. As I said to him, the truths we choose to point out and those we choose not to point out are often significant, as is the way that they are presented.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Burning ghost » November 8th, 2018, 6:15 am

Steve -

Reread what I said.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply