Free Speech

[Aridhale]

If you don't know I'm pretty new here so this has probably been spoken about before.. a quick search on the site didn't show anything like this specifically so I'd thought I'd ask for some opinions.

I've been recently watching some interviews in Europe, Australia, etc. specifically about the Charlie Hebdo incident and free speech impediments. I think the largest impediment today is essentially fear of retribution from those that take great insult in what is spoken, written or drawn.

I believe that free speech goes right up to the point of violence. For instance you can say, write, or draw whatever you want as long as it does not instigate violence.

I also realize that in religious cases, as with Charlie Hebdo, even the smallest joke could insight violence and I do not agree with this. I believe that all faiths should be equally scrutinized and ridiculed for the things that do not make sense or do great harm.

I am not sure if my belief in free speech is compatible with my second point. Perhaps some of you can show me how I can harmonize them and I'd also love to hear your opinions on the matter :)

[Munch]

The point of course, is in the wording itself, free "Speech", the spoken word, the expression of words and dipictions though different mediums. Everyone is entitled to free speech, and even those who say shit we don't agree with have that right, even evil fuckers like WBC.
however, the line comes between what is spoken and depicted, and when it crosses to a physical aspect that it stops being about speech and visual, and starts becoming about harm.
In the same vent, when WBC picketed another young soldiers funeral back in 2012, the Patriot Guard Riders came in, blocked them off, played patriotic music, and revved their engines as loud as they could to drown out the ignorant wails of WBC. no harm was brought to anyone, and their right to drown out hate speech was upheld.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVYtkQRMJQk

This is how things should be done. Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish what they do, and if muslim people want to protest it, draw pictures that insult Charlie Hebdo, thats their right. But the savages that killed the artists at Charlie Hebdo are just that, savages, they are not in the grounds of civilized law that the western countries have built themselves on, it was just a group of savage murderers who do not represent the freedom of speech that needs to be upheld.

[Mike Cl]

All speech should be free.  Well, not really.  The famous test of the Supreme Court is that one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.  This time, I agree with the SC.  We should be able to say what we want and to express our own views as we want.  But there has to be limits.  The yelling fire is one.  I know that cyber bulling is very real, and there must be some threshold developed to control that aspect of free speech, as well.  The same with cyber stalking--one person should not be allowed to terrorize another over the internet.  One aspect of free speech that is often ignored is the fact that you can say what you want, but you can and should be held responsible for that speech.  For example, the Duck Dynasty idiot spewed christian hate about gays.  He got a large amount of flack, and he whined 'well, I should have free speech, this is amerika after all.  Yes, you have free speech and so do I and I can hold you accountable for making stupid statements. 

[stromboli]

Consider that conservatives in this country can openly do things like enact personhood laws or close planned parenthood clinics and abortion clinics, which to my  mind is just as damaging and counter productive as anything else you can do, it seems highly hypocritical that they can then flip flop and say speaking against religion is bad. If they can attack things we consider sacred,so can we. Everything is fair game. the fact that people have to resort to violence is just indicative of their inability to attack it intellectually.

  To quote Isaac Asimov in the Foundation series, "violence is the last resort of the incompetent".

[trdsf]

  To quote Isaac Asimov in the Foundation series, "violence is the last resort of the incompetent".

As much as I love Asimov (I swear, I'd read the man's shopping lists), this is a quote that's always bothered me.  It seems much more often that violence is the first resort of the incompetent, and frequently the second, third, and on down the line to the last.

(I swear, the number of times I've been tempted to write in 'Salvor Hardin' in races in which I don't like either of my options...)

[stromboli]

Unfortunately you are right. Charlie Hebdo is not just an example but typical. Threatening and carrying out violence rather than seeking other approaches is the opposite of intelligent approaches.

[SkyChief]

All speech should be free.  Well, not really.  The famous test of the Supreme Court is that one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.  This time, I agree with the SC.  We should be able to say what we want and to express our own views as we want.  But there has to be limits... (snipped) 

I think you nicely demonstrated the need to avoid absolutes.

'Free speech' is just that. The ability to speak freely without fear of (social/political) repercussion.

Of course, this is no longer possible.

Free speech is just a thing of the past.

At best, we can only hope for some form of 'provisional' free speech.  Which is not really free speech at all. 

If it doesn't pass political muster, there is a price to pay.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Free speech has many limitations and you can and will be fined and often jailed if you cross certain lines, but one line that is annoyingly crossed daily is Fox news with the lies and seditious comments made about our president and basically half of our population. I'm for free speech, but it should be limited to the truth or at least when using the public airwaves for depicting the 'news".. Fox isn't news, but they depict themselves as a news channel and sell lies.
Screw it.. Free speech is reserved for those with the most money when it comes to mass communication..

[Solitary]

Free speech does not result in violence, ignorant people make it happen. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an exception as is others that can bring harm, but free speech can't be blamed for inciting riots or violence because it offends people in the Dark ages of civilization or their fragile egos that want an excuse to be violent. Speech is only abstract sounds and letters on a page, they don't jump off the page and get violent, unless they are sounds violent to your sense of hearing like rap music.      This reaction to speech as causing violence is a False cause in logic. Solitary

[Sal1981]

Free speech should be only about speech, not actions. And fuck respect taken/given. someones ideas, and that goes for all ideas, don't deserve respect, quite the contrary. Ideas should all be on the battlefield of other ideas to see which comes out on top.

[Jason78]

I believe that free speech goes right up to the point of violence. For instance you can say, write, or draw whatever you want as long as it does not instigate violence.

If free speech comes with caveats then it's not free is it?  I should have the freedom to say anything I want.   If I say something that offends you, then you have every right to sit there and be offended by it.

Being offended doesn't give anyone grounds for shooting someone in the head though.  You've not been hurt, or injured in any way.  You've had nothing taken from you.  Violence is a disproportionate response to a cartoon.  When you say that free speech is ok  "as long as it does not instigate violence" then you're shifting the blame for that violence from the gunmen to the artist.

[Mike Cl]

Free speech should be free--and a society cannot be free without free speech.  But totally free???? Really?  Can that jealous co-worker tell your boss a bunch of lies under the guise of free speech?  That is why we have libel laws and for good reason.  Should we be able to sit behind that little girl or boy on the bus and tell them that 'I'm going to fucking slit your throat, your brothers throat and then burn you dog.'?  Some free speech is simply an act of violence.  Free does not mean unresponsible.  With every freedom comes a responsibility to maintain it and keep it.  We need to be responsible when using speech.

And I do not mean one cannot ridicule religious, philosophical, or political ideas or ideals.  Go for it.  Just because I tell the world that Islam is a piece of shit should not result in violence toward me.  Someone is free to respond to me by telling me my ideas and ideals are a piece of shit.  When you use ridicule you have to be able to accept the ridicule directed toward you.  I can ridicule tell the cows come home--but those out there also have the right to direct their scorn, ridicule, humor, or whatever towards me, as well. 

But yes, if we don't have free speech, we will not be free.