Is Free Speech Really What We Want?

No I rather social pressure dictate what is acceptable and what isn't. When society fails to do that, some more powerful force needs to step in. That more powerful force happens to be the government.

The speech I'm talking about is useless outside of causing harm. We already have laws that limit certain types of speech and it's limited for good reason. I don't see why speech that tears at society should be tolerated.

 

I will maybe 30 political forum.

I will maybe 30 sports forum.

Then maybe 20 more forum.

80 forums in total maximum.

 

Your logic is contradictory though. You say you wouldn't support government intrusion, except when you say you would want it. You suggest that there is an inherent role for government to play in the adjudication of speech. No one says that speech might not have consequences. But we make no laws that suggest we don't have a right to express it in the first place.

 

Calling for infanticide is an example of what I'm talking about. What is redeeming about this type of speech? Absolutely nothing. It obviously causes more harm than good.

Now, imagine if many people took to this infanticide message and there weren't many people putting a stop to it. I simply see no reason why this type of talk should be tolerated by society. And if enough people aren't shunning it, why shouldn't the government step in and stop it?

To your last question, our society needs discipline and standards. Sorry, but it does. One of the norms should be people expressing themselves in a manner worthy of the 21st century and not some reckless fashion. People need to be responsible for the stuff they say.

 

There are already laws that present consequences for certain types of speech. There are no recognized and protected rights to incite riots or violence, to maliciously yell "fire" in a crowded theater, to slander or libel someone, to publicly advocate for the assassination of a public figure....

outside of those existing parameters, "inflammatory with no redeeming value" is purely subjective and open to broad interpretation.

 

I wouldn't say that I won't support government intrusion. I simply don't see a problem with it in certain cases. I just rather society groomed people in a worthy manner so that they are able to express themselves responsibly before government has to step in in the first place. The government should indeed step in when the rhetoric gets out of control and people are acting in a way that is destructive to society because of certain damaging speech.

I'm suggesting government play a role in making sure speech doesn't get to a place where people turn destructive because of it. Society is the first line of compelling social cohesion. I just believe that if society fails in stopping certain types of speech from getting out of hand to where it becomes destructive that government steps in.

 

Inflammatory with no redeeming value is subjective, but like you state, we already have language that falls right under this category:

Yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander, libel, calling for assassination of a public figure are all inflammatory and have no redeeming value. None.​

Now, another poster brought up an example of a woman calling for infanticide of white children. I see this as the same exact thing as calling for assassination of a public figure in that it is incredibly inflammatory and has absolutely no redeeming value. What is society doing to keep her from saying this? Nothing at worse, social pressure to not speak in such a manner at best. That said, what if others agreed with her reasons for her calls to infanticide and were compelled to help in their own subtle and clever ways? This to me is worse than her freedom to call for infanticide!

 

So the discussion is going as I thought it would go. People in America are so indoctrinated that they can't imagine a country without free speech unless that country is Soviet Russia.

There is a value limiting free speech. I realize that it won't change your opinions, but it's what people should be discussing. In a place where free speech is limited, acceptance of neighbors is very high. After all, if nobody says anything bad about one another, then people tend to like each other more. There is value to that. When people trust each other, you need less services. Imagine a world where you never needed a lawyer or contract law. You just shook hands, and everyone trusted each other to keep their word. In places where you have less free speech, you tend to have better social cohesion. So again, while I too prefer free speech, we're biased.

 

Your freedom to swing your fist about, ends where my nose begins. The handle used by the OP indicates he is an atheist, therefore he probably does not believe in true free will or free speech, and doubtless has much regard for protecting these rights, given to us by our Creator, simply because we are human beings.

It's where the exercise of your free rights impacts the free rights of others, that the State has a regulatory role. You do not have a right not to be hated, you do have a right not be physically harmed or cheated.

There is however an area where Congress is free to regulate:

Steve King introduces bill to bar Supreme Court from citing Obamacare rulings

Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide exceptions and regulations for Supreme Court consideration of cases and controversies.

The previous Obamacare rulings identified by King's bill include NFIB v. Sebelius, King v. Burwell and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In its 5-4 NFIB v. Sebelius ruling, the court permitted the survival of Obamacare's "individual mandate" requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, ruling it was essentially a tax.

In King v. Burwell, the high court ruled 6-3 that millions of Americans are entitled to keep tax subsidies that could be used to purchase health insurance.

And in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that some businesses whose owners have strong religious beliefs can opt out of the Obamacare mandate that all employers must provide birth control coverage for employees.

Congress must work to restore Article I authority and the Rule of Law by ensuring Congress is the only entity of our government making or changing laws.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...from-citing-obamacare-rulings/article/2610801

The 14th Amendment explicitly grants Congress the power to protect our free rights from even State intrusion, but the Supreme Court promptly muzzled it, one Day the 14th Amendment will be made great again!

And your free to judge it so. Congress is not free to suppress it.

- - - Updated - - -

Your freedom to swing your fist about, ends where my nose begins. The handle used by the OP indicates he is an atheist, therefore he probably does not believe in true free will or free speech, and doubtless has much regard for protecting these rights, given to us by our Creator, simply because we are human beings.

It's where the exercise of your free rights impacts the free rights of others, that the State has a regulatory role. You do not have a right not to be hated, you do have a right not be physically harmed or cheated.

There is however an area where Congress is free to regulate:

Steve King introduces bill to bar Supreme Court from citing Obamacare rulings

Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide exceptions and regulations for Supreme Court consideration of cases and controversies.

The previous Obamacare rulings identified by King's bill include NFIB v. Sebelius, King v. Burwell and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In its 5-4 NFIB v. Sebelius ruling, the court permitted the survival of Obamacare's "individual mandate" requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, ruling it was essentially a tax.

In King v. Burwell, the high court ruled 6-3 that millions of Americans are entitled to keep tax subsidies that could be used to purchase health insurance.

And in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that some businesses whose owners have strong religious beliefs can opt out of the Obamacare mandate that all employers must provide birth control coverage for employees.

Congress must work to restore Article I authority and the Rule of Law by ensuring Congress is the only entity of our government making or changing laws.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/steve-king-introduces-bill-to-bar-supreme-court-from-citing-obamacare-rulings/article/2610801

The 14th Amendment explicitly grants Congress the power to protect our free rights from even State intrusion, but the Supreme Court promptly muzzled it, one Day the 14th Amendment will be made great again!

And your free to judge it so. Congress is not free to suppress it.

 

RICO prosecution for "global warming deniers"?

 

I was at a baseball game years ago with my daughter (11) and son (7). The guy behind me was telling his friend in graphic detail what he was going to do to his girlfriend that night. Every possible sexual term and procedure was described for all to hear. I turned around and told to shut up. I said I would destroy him if he said one more word. He never said another word, but his friend complained, "Free speech, man. We can say whatever we want". He sounded like a leftover, idiotic hippie.

There are limits to free speech.

 

We have to live with their having free speech.



​

 

The bolded...some may definitely define that as violence inciting speech, and I would be inclined to agree with them, but one of the most beautiful things about the 1st Amendment is that it is somewhat 'self policing' (due to the interwebs, now more than ever)...she now owns those words forever, and will likely be punished by many in her social circle, and more importantly, her employer, potential future employers, etc.

I would much prefer such individuals be subjected to that sort of punishment, than the punishment a government may levy. I would much rather retain the rights to push the envelope of 'common decency' than to have a handful of politicians preemptively define 'common decency' for me, and punish me for crossing their arbitrary line.

My general rule of thumb regarding censorship (and most things 'government'): Authority ceded government is rarely, if ever, returned to the people, and due to the ability of creative lawyers to find legal precedent under every rock, more likely to be built upon.

 

From your initial post: "but the idea that free speech is always helpful should most definitely be abolished."

Do you have any examples of anyone anywhere arguing that free speech "is always helpful"? Who is advancing that "idea".

I have never heard or seen that argument.

 

So, you would support criminal prosecution of Black Lives Matters and its supporters for their speech?

 

I'm just glad to have a commander in chief that is against this PC crap.

Obama won't even let males address female soldiers in a group as "guys". For instance if there's a group of men and women and I said "come on guys, huddle up". That would mean the equal opportunity officer would have to get involved.

Obama is such a friggin wuss the way he's transformed my Army.

Now we have someone that doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about PC and is against it. Thank god.

 

"Now maybe I'm wrong."

No doubt about it, you are.

Canada does not believe in free speech. It is a travesty of a purportedly free people. Canada has hate speech laws.

 

PC and the related "police" you refer to are merely an mental 'constructs' (ghosts).

Many need to CEASE complaining about "PC"; most the time all they are attempting to do with it is coerce or shame other voices into silence, as they arrogantly take control of the discussion.

People may indeed have certain SETS of views, values and conventions by which they communicate... but trying to label them (or what they bring to the discussion) as "PC", is essentially BS; an easy way out for the emotionally immature and intellectually ill-prepared.

Interesting Article

 

There is an important point to make with something you wrote with your statement:

"You do not have a right not to be hated..."

While true, hate speech, for example, is a call for malice all its own, because that's the point of hate speech.

To your point about Congress ruling on the individual mandates and exemptions for ObamaCare, I do not understand what that has to do with freedom of speech. If you're talking about overreach, yes you have a point, but then corrections will be made later on you say. So I don't see this as big a problem as issues that go on unaddressed for too long.

 

And really, we should have limits here, which would likely be practical considering the negatives of human nature. But I understand the principle we revere as Americans.

With that being said, I never wanted to do it... but I'm going to lean more toward 'hammering' (emotionally/politically) those who abuse that "free speech"; those who play the "PC" card as some 'license' to hurt or abuse others in their daily walk. 'Trump' kind of showed me the effectiveness of just slamming people when they deserve it (though I question his 'judgment' in general).

In other words, I don't see ANY reason for people to tolerate being abused by fools imagining their incivility will not be reciprocated, merely because they are misled into thinking their "political-incorrectness" is right or necessarily appropriate. After all, we're all dealing with human beings. And in the end, what you communicate comes with a set of real consequences.

 

If speech were always 'reasoned and rational' (as defined by...who?), there'd be no reason to protect it with 1A.

 

Technically it is free speech but that guy, like many people, forget that free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or consequences. It's his right to say mean things, sure, but that doesn't mean it's smart or reasonable or a good idea to.

Let's change the setting and try this in a workplace. Everyone has the right to call their boss a dumbass to his face. In turn, he has the right to call you unemployed.

 

This seems to be the inference. Of course the inherent tyranny in that eludes Dark Skies.

Im happy with the idea that having an indelible record of such stupidity and hate exists so we can refer to it in the future. It's like watching the melt down of those who couldn't handle the loss of Hillary. Literally, folks are professing their need to die because of their disappointment. While humorous to watch, it is disturbing that we would feel it necessary to send the authorities after these folks for their own protection, or their threats of personal harm. It is obviously hyperbole, and we can see through it. And if not, well, it's Darwinism.

I would add though that the minute government starts making the criteria by which we must constrain our speech within that we have ceded a basic natural right that was never intended to be.

 

Is self policing enough in some cases? The price of her free infanticide speech may cost innocent children their lives. Some people will listen to her, may even agree with her and quietly help her carry out her wishes. So yeah, she got fired, but the words are already out there.

I can't disagree with you on politicians controlling speech either. Fortunately, politicians should be controlled by the populace. They are not a god-like entity where they should do what they wish without repercussions. With that, I see nothing wrong with society evaluating whether or not certain inflammatory and reckless speech should remain protected while keeping the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

 

I'm confused. Aren't BLM members and supporters already being arrested??? People are petitioning the government to label BLM as a terrorist organization. Apparently, people agree with the idea that certain speech/speakers should be dealt with in a more serious manner.

ETA:

To the question: Yes they should be prosecuted, if they are calling for assassinating police officers.

Here is my reason: Not only will people sympathetic to this call think to take them up on it, but it will justify more of the trigger happiness inherent in some police officers working in certain areas making matters worse between officers and citizens.