Is Free Speech Really What We Want?

I agree. I should be the judge of what you are allowed to freely say.

 

Isn't calling something hate speech part of disagreeing with it? Why do all conservatives seem to think that 'not being PC' means they can say anything they want and all of us have to just take it?

A lot of us are too insulated from reality by being on anonymous message boards and talking about politics. Try going on your blog one time and calling your neighbor a "degenerate liberal" because you saw his Hillary sticker. You may find out that Libel and Slander is still not protected as free speech and never has been

 

Malice is the intention or desire to do evil.

You want the government to be able to regulate what is, and what is not evil and then outlaw even the desire to do what the government has labeled as evil?

That is an incredibly powerful government. That is not the government we have today, nor is it one anyone of us would likely want to live under.

What would you get in exchange for surrendering your liberty to such a super-state of authority?

Further, one error those that want to surrender our rights miss, in my mind, is just how well our system works. I was repeatedly told that I was "a hater" simply because given the choice btw Trump and Hillary, I went with Trump. To voice my opinion was labeled repeatedly as "hate speech'.

Hillary told me that I was "irredeemable" and "unamerican". Hillary has a liberal church background, she knows exactly what "irredeemable" means to the Christians that were not voting for her.

What would life be like for us, should such a person gain the levers of Federal Power, thank goodness we didn't have to find out.

The second thing, is just how stable the English speaking democracies are, from where these concepts came, compared to the rest of the world. Canada, America, Great Britain and Australia have much longer times of ruling without revolution, conquest or overthrow that the rest of the world. You would have to look far and wide to find another group of nations with our longevity.

Our secret is that we keep the Oligarchical interests in check. The fear of every Oligarchy is uprising. As an Oligarchy increases in power, the forces of eventual uprising become inescapable as they enforce their interests desires and dreams against the society they hold under their control. We bleed off these pressures at the ballot box. What we have accomplished should not be treated cheaply.

Our Constitution starts off with the reminder that we are forming "a more perfect union". This is an ongoing, never-ending process. Our original Constitution should have included many of the later amendments, but they did what they could and passed the baton to later generations as we will pass it to those that follow us.

We accomplish what we can, always remembering that "All are granted certain unsurrenderable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of our dreams. It is to secure these rights, that governments are formed among people." That list of 4 rights is inexhaustible. As on Framer put it, no matter the list you give me, I could add 40 or 50 more.

So, our time, short and precious as it is, is well spent discovering and adding to these rights, extending the reach of the free-will and minimizing the conflict between free will people living in close proximity. This is our calling and pursuit.

In a nation of the free-willed, making free choices a messy business? Of course, but revolution and tyranny put any such unpleasantness to great shame, the blood and gore that accompanies such is not to be beheld.

Those that would limit speech and police thought are back-slidden, they are to be kept as powerless as possible. The sooner they are recognized and the curb the greater the harm that is avoided.

This was a good election, I'm grateful for the outcome. Trump is a much better choice than Hillary for this temporary office. Much more work remains, the government on more than just the Federal level is way way to involved in our day to day business.

 

OK, who makes the rules as to what is and is not hate speech?

 

permitting the establishment of laws (in a futile attempt) to preempt "mays, mights and maybes" is the surest path to a government with unlimited authority.

If I tell someone to "go jump off a bridge", they "may" go jump off a bridge. I seriously doubt it, but they "might". Should government (or We, The People) outlaw the verbalizing of such instructions in order to "preempt" the possibility of someone following them?

An individual gun owner "may" use their gun to murder someone one day. Is that justification to allow the application of another layer of rights infringing "preemptive" laws on top of the laws that already prohibit murder?

 

So true.

 

Something that the Republicans here are forgetting, burning the flag is protected under free speech.

 

Government has always been a necessary evil thing. It is the greatest threat to humanity.
BLM etc are, for the most part, white noise.

 

Probably protected political speech - unless the neighbor was a "conservative".

 

So you're trying to say you contemplated physically harming those guys because you didn't like what they were saying?
Even though their words had no physical impact on you... you would physically hurt them into compliance..... Am I getting that right?

Think that just about sums up this thread

 

There's only one problem with your premise. My neighbors are not Liberal, or Democrats. If I have a disagreement I discuss it with my opponent and don't claim hate speech on their part. However, I've been told I'm a hater on these boards. BTW I've never used the term "Degenerate Liberal", But I've been called Deplorable, Hater and Racist on these boards many times.

 

As it should be. but the right to burn the flag doesn't guarantee the flag-burner will suffer no consequences. I'm an employer...if I see a facebook post of someone burning the flag and that someone later asks me to hire them, they're going to be disappointed.

 

Seems that the Progressive Marxist Left has taken up the mantle of what is permissible in direct contrast and violation to our Constitution.

 

Sigh.

Freedom of speech isn't meant to be "helpful". It isn't meant to be used solely for the purpose of advancing civilization. It isn't intended nor required to have any redeeming value of any sort.

Freedom of speech is a requirement for and byproduct of FREEDOM!

Jackasses...

 

The purpose of hate speech is to inspire malice towards the hated. It serves no other purpose.

Hillary calling folks 'irredeemable,' 'deplorable', and 'unAmerican' had consequences. This is a good thing. Society dished out her consequences. I believe society is the first line of defense against certain speech and behaviors, but when things get out of hand, the government should get involved.

Yes, government should step in when rhetoric gets too carried away and there is little to no social pressure to stop it. For example, some of our news sources will recklessly inflame the public and incite destruction (incite riots in the way they cover the news). I see no problem with the government prosecuting those who recklessly manipulate the news in a certain way to inflame the public.

Also, we already have limited speech and they are limited for good reasons. The government does not have to get involved with micromanaging speech, but should when it gets out of hand.

 

Or, instead of arresting journalists, the police could just put down the riots. It's not hard to put down riots.

 

Correct. Which is why the OP could not find an example of any free speech advocate contending that free speech is "always helpful".

 

I'm not talking about random everyday speech. I'm talking about speech that is intended to inspire harm against others or simply inflame them for no good reason usually meant for the masses. The type of speech that is usually spurred by organizations peddling hateful rhetoric against one or more groups for the purpose of influence and power.

Society should actually be the governor of such speech, but if it fails to quell inflammation, some other entity should step in. The question is what is a greater force in society other than government? Society sometimes doesn't care if people are harmed by certain speech.

 

The cost of reckless journalism inciting riots is real damage to property, real harm to innocent people, and taxpayers having to front the bill for police coming out for events they wouldn't have to if only people were more responsible for their 1st Amendment rights.

 

Just move to North Korea. You'll have all you dream of, there. Because you know, their Dear Leaders simply declare certain words or phrases 'harmful', and voila! they're illegal. That's how totalitarianism works, you know.

 

Who determines what 'tears at society'? Your 'group'? Or the group who is 'tearing at society' for what they see as good reason (for all)?

 

I see government types labeling as "hate speech" sometimes, things that look to me like nothing more than political disagreement, so I would never support government speech controls and I'm grateful for the First Amendment that prohibits the government from doing so.

How would you change 18 U.S. Code § 2102, if you could?

(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

We didn't see any Grand Juries assembled after last year's rioting to determine if felonies occurred. Once the DOJ is under new leadership, I expect to see our existing laws enforced. I couldn't escape the feeling that incitement was occurring and a blind eye turned because the outgoing Administration thought it was serving their political purposes.

And, I think that is part of why the nation turned to Trump.

 

Again, there are already laws in place that may (if convicted) present consequences for speech society has deemed dangerous or civilly damaging (slander/libel).

"offensive", "hurtful" or "hateful" speech, or speech with "no redeeming value" is in the eye of the beholder, and precisely why speech is broadly protected by the 1st Amendment. besides, the justice system is busy enough trying to deal with actual crime....adding "offensive/hurtful speech" to the docket won't help matters.

Sticks and stones....

 

Some speech is already illegal in the United States. For me, it is a matter of considering the idea that other types of reckless and dangerous speech also be dealt with in a serious manner. Nothing totalitarian about explaining my point of view.

Also, is it not totalitarian to exile others because of their stances?

 

You're confusing contemporary censorship with ancient cultures of conformity. Two VERY different animals. The cultures you speak of have relied solely upon social pressure to maintain social harmony, there has never been any need to impose it from outside - even where that imposition is now present within their modern systems of govt. Govts in such places are simply reflecting what was already there. You cannot suddenly impose such things on a culture which has not had any recent history of social conformity. Doing so would indeed by tyrannical.