3 ms·

Yeah, free speech doesnt mean "anything goes". We as a society have made the determination that there are categories of speech that are harmful, and as such are

Yeah, free speech doesnt mean "anything goes". We as a society have made the determination that there are categories of speech that are harmful, and as such are illegal. You cant libel, you cant slander, you cant shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Speech that advocates for the supression or termination of other people based on their race is "Hate speech" and also illegal. There is neither value nor need for complete and total 'free speech'.

manigandham 8y ago
Free speech is about government interference, and the first 3 categories have unanimous agreement. It's the "hate speech" label that gets complicated based on who defines it. Many who claim things are hate speech today also use hate speech themselves (following your definition of suppression based on race) to shout down and ban others. It shows just how complex this situation is and why "hate speech" is precisely the type of speech that needs defense in the first place because it's mostly rooted in defiance and disagreement, not outright hate.
- nothal 8y ago
  Hate speech is also free speech per legal definition. That’s why the KKK can march through towns and profess hatred of whichever group they choose.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > Free speech is about government interference No. The 1st amendment of the US constitution is about government interference - the idea of free speech is broader than that.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    That's not what the post I was replying to is talking about. Free speech as an idea is pretty simple, it's the complexities of implementation that are up for debate.
nothal 8y ago
I agree with the content of your message but shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is actually free speech (or at least, only not free speech under an outdated legal standard). It was used as a hypothetical to represent speech creating “clear or present danger” in the Schenk vs. US case and was later overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio. After that case, speech must be directly inciting certain unlawful or violent action to not be free speech (under the model of creating harm, this isn’t the only model and free speech is essentially case specific, e.g. free speech is different for a government employee vs. a student at a state college vs. an urban professional at a private company). Free speech is honestly pretty sweeping and I always find conversations about free speech on tech platforms really disingenuous because most people usually have no idea what the legal standard is and don’t really separate government and corporate moderation of speech.
krapp 8y ago
>Yeah, free speech doesn't mean "anything goes". Yes, it does. It has to, otherwise free speech is defined as any arbitrary level of censorship a government allows, and one could say North Korea has just as much "free speech" as the US. Now, I'm not making an argument that free speech as such is preferable or even feasible in a civil society, or that censorship per se is wrong, and I'm definitely not making the typical slippery slope argument that any form of censorship will inevitably lead to tyranny. However, free speech has to be defined as a constant to mean anything objective.

manigandham 8y ago

Free speech is about government interference, and the first 3 categories have unanimous agreement. It's the "hate speech" label that gets complicated based on who defines it. Many who claim things are hate speech today also use hate speech themselves (following your definition of suppression based on race) to shout down and ban others. It shows just how complex this situation is and why "hate speech" is precisely the type of speech that needs defense in the first place because it's mostly rooted in defiance and disagreement, not outright hate.

nothal 8y ago
Hate speech is also free speech per legal definition. That’s why the KKK can march through towns and profess hatred of whichever group they choose.
deogeo 8y ago
> Free speech is about government interference No. The 1st amendment of the US constitution is about government interference - the idea of free speech is broader than that.
- manigandham 8y ago
  That's not what the post I was replying to is talking about. Free speech as an idea is pretty simple, it's the complexities of implementation that are up for debate.

nothal 8y ago

I agree with the content of your message but shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is actually free speech (or at least, only not free speech under an outdated legal standard). It was used as a hypothetical to represent speech creating “clear or present danger” in the Schenk vs. US case and was later overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio. After that case, speech must be directly inciting certain unlawful or violent action to not be free speech (under the model of creating harm, this isn’t the only model and free speech is essentially case specific, e.g. free speech is different for a government employee vs. a student at a state college vs. an urban professional at a private company). Free speech is honestly pretty sweeping and I always find conversations about free speech on tech platforms really disingenuous because most people usually have no idea what the legal standard is and don’t really separate government and corporate moderation of speech.

krapp 8y ago

>Yeah, free speech doesn't mean "anything goes". Yes, it does. It has to, otherwise free speech is defined as any arbitrary level of censorship a government allows, and one could say North Korea has just as much "free speech" as the US. Now, I'm not making an argument that free speech as such is preferable or even feasible in a civil society, or that censorship per se is wrong, and I'm definitely not making the typical slippery slope argument that any form of censorship will inevitably lead to tyranny. However, free speech has to be defined as a constant to mean anything objective.