4 ms·

To counter your opinion, I will quote to you from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; thi

by ecdavis 11y ago

To counter your opinion, I will quote to you from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The US Bill of Rights is simply an acknowledgment of the inalienable right to free speech, is it not a definition. The role of the US Constitution is to define the powers of the US federal government. The absence of a protection from private attacks on free speech is not an endorsement thereof. It's simply the nature of the document. All too often I see the expression, "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." In fact, that's precisely what it is. The freedom to say what you want without being punished for doing so, whether that punishment be execution, imprisonment, social exclusion or anything else. Society seems to be accepting some limitations to free speech (i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theater, personal political opinions having professional ramifications, etc.). If we've decided, as a society, that it is necessary to limit free speech then let's be honest about it. We should not present those limitations as some inevitable part of having free speech in the first place. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. That we have decided consequences are sometimes necessary is a testament to how much we value freedom of speech.

verbin217 11y ago
Yelling "fire" into a crowded theater is more than speech. Similar to when a person gets in another's face and screams at them it becomes more than speech. We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content.
- ecdavis 11y ago
  > We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content. Absolutely we can, but we need to be careful in how we do so and we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible. Niceties like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" help us easily accept more restrictions on speech - in fact they make those restrictions seem like common sense! As a society, though, we should be ultra-vigilant when it comes to protecting our speech and only restrict it when we are absolutely sure it is necessary. I'm not just talking about legal restrictions here, either, cultural restrictions are just as important. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where the "mode of expression" being restricted is, say, talking to friends in a bar.
  - verbin217 11y ago
    > we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible. Agreed. I was only trying to produce a notion of speech that we can safely declare inviolable. There may be a gray area between that which is certainly black or white. Having those boundaries lets us explore it while mitigating the slippery slope.
ctdonath 11y ago
As I noted elsewhere here (esp. my bit about "fire!"), there is a difference between consequences emanating from the speech due to others acting on the information therein, vs punitive consequences contingent on the speech itself. Don't confuse punishing someone for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater regardless of reason for doing so, with punishing someone for instigating a crushing stampede by yelling "fire!" in a theater when there knowingly wasn't a threat thereof. Both are certainly "consequences"; I'm concerned that some here seem unclear of the difference and would protect the speaker in the latter case on grounds conflated with the former.
- ecdavis 11y ago
  Perhaps I shouldn't have used that example. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, rather to point out that we have collectively decided, "yes, we like free speech - but only up to a point." That's fine, I'm OK with it, but I think we ought to be clear that when we place limits on where and how people can express themselves we are, by definition, limiting their freedom of speech and expression. I disagree that the difference you've identified truly exists. In some cases we punish a speaker based on how others reacted to what they said, in some cases we don't. We deliberate on these things on a case-by-case basis, there's no consistent rule.

by ecdavis 11y ago

verbin217 11y ago

Yelling "fire" into a crowded theater is more than speech. Similar to when a person gets in another's face and screams at them it becomes more than speech. We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content.

ecdavis 11y ago
> We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content. Absolutely we can, but we need to be careful in how we do so and we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible. Niceties like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" help us easily accept more restrictions on speech - in fact they make those restrictions seem like common sense! As a society, though, we should be ultra-vigilant when it comes to protecting our speech and only restrict it when we are absolutely sure it is necessary. I'm not just talking about legal restrictions here, either, cultural restrictions are just as important. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where the "mode of expression" being restricted is, say, talking to friends in a bar.
- verbin217 11y ago
  > we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible. Agreed. I was only trying to produce a notion of speech that we can safely declare inviolable. There may be a gray area between that which is certainly black or white. Having those boundaries lets us explore it while mitigating the slippery slope.

ctdonath 11y ago

As I noted elsewhere here (esp. my bit about "fire!"), there is a difference between consequences emanating from the speech due to others acting on the information therein, vs punitive consequences contingent on the speech itself. Don't confuse punishing someone for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater regardless of reason for doing so, with punishing someone for instigating a crushing stampede by yelling "fire!" in a theater when there knowingly wasn't a threat thereof. Both are certainly "consequences"; I'm concerned that some here seem unclear of the difference and would protect the speaker in the latter case on grounds conflated with the former.

ecdavis 11y ago
Perhaps I shouldn't have used that example. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, rather to point out that we have collectively decided, "yes, we like free speech - but only up to a point." That's fine, I'm OK with it, but I think we ought to be clear that when we place limits on where and how people can express themselves we are, by definition, limiting their freedom of speech and expression. I disagree that the difference you've identified truly exists. In some cases we punish a speaker based on how others reacted to what they said, in some cases we don't. We deliberate on these things on a case-by-case basis, there's no consistent rule.