Does freedom of speech really exist.

Remove all ads!

Courtesy of the Washington Times

I know this particular article is about Islam, but that isn't entirely the point of this thread. More and more I am starting to see that freedom of expression and speech is only free if people agree with what you are saying. Recently we had the travesty at Columbia University where hooligans shouted down the speaker.

Freedom of speech means the right to speak and be heard. If someone thinks you are a crackpot and chooses to ignore you, then that is their right also. I am concerned that freedom of speech is being lost to the "mob voice" and that if anything will be the downfall of western society.

 

Another paranoid lady. "We must figth against islamic terrorists and their terrible video recorders! They are in a cyber jihad!" Completely bullsh!t.

And the freedom of speech, of course it has some limits but as people get more and more aggressive, they can'T bear the speechs within these limits. For example, if you say me "You are stupid", you have no right to say it. But if you say "You tell stupid things" I can bear it. But nowadays, people don't have enough tolerence to hear such things

 

I disagree. I believe I have the right to say that you are stupid. You also have the right to ignore me. If you (alone or with others) prevent me from calling you stupid then you are denying me a basic right, and that is a great harm.

 

Not quite. If someone calls me an idiot, for example, and does it in public I believe I have the right to sue him. If it's in the public space, being called something like that can actually harm you. As the saying goes in my hometown "Let me tell everyone your sister's a s..t, and then try proving to people you don't have a sister."

Of course, YouTube got carried a little too far. I wondered why no one complained about the islamist videos, though... It's not like no one speaks Arabic, I think.

 

Context, if he calls you an idiot without qualification, that's grounds for a suit of some kind. However, if he calls you an idiot with reason (ie you did something stupid), for you then or anyone else to try and stop him; would be denying him a basic right, and would be a great harm as Snook says.

 

Still, it can be a bit fuzzy. I was told that while it is generally ok to call what someone does idiotic, calling them an idiot can be a reason for trouble, or at least a long and complicated legal case if you're unlucky.

 

If you sue someone for calling you an idiot, you've got problems and should be seeing a psychiatrist instead of a lawyer.

Just as much as people have a right to speak how they choose, a private business also has a right to put restrictions up as they choose. They are well within their rights to not offer services to people.

 

I’m not very familiar with laws, so I’d like to know if it is legal to deny a service to someone under a racist premise?

 

Suing someone for slander requires proof to the opposite. As always, it is the prosecuting entity that must prove its case, whether it's the state in a murder case or an offended party seeking damages. So in order to sue someone for calling you an idiot, you would have to prove that you were not. And ironically, the act of suing for such a trivial offense disproves your case right up front.

Of course, some people are exceptions. Those whose living is based on their public image, for example, have quite an interest in keeping people from muddying it wantonly. That's why almost all of the slander and libel cases you hear about involve public figures, because they are the only ones who have a vested interest in keeping these things from happening, not to mention that they're more popular targets than some random schmoe.

Getting back to the matter at hand, it is entirely YouTube's discretion what to allow and disallow, even if it doesn't meet their posted requirements. Though it may seem dishonest when compared to the posted requirements, they are not compelled to put up whatever video you want. They offer the service, and can refuse anyone they wish for whatever reason they wish. Freedom of speech and expression does not include a right to use someone else's soapbox without their consent. While I may be disappointed that they're giving into this pressure while ignoring the pressuring side's own propaganda, they are well within their rights to do so.

 

But this will be too personal and can get dirty. If you call me stupid, then I say you are this and you say I am that... Then maybe one of us will start a physical fight and it continues. This seems like a slippery slope, but I don't say it "will" happen, I say it "can" happen. Therefore, if you attack someone's personality instead of someone's ideas, it can lead to bad things.

 

There should be some limits. What some Muslims did after cartoon crisis (burning Denmark flags etc.) can not be accepted. Also the cartoons may be discussed too. BTW I didn't like the cartoons except two of them. They were only insulting and provoking.

 

We can get off the "stupid" argument. A seminar speaker I see quite often is fond of saying "If you can get the stupid example, you can understand the more complex one."

That is what I'm seeing. In the two cases I posted about organized groups basically shouted down and prevented an opinion from being heard that they disagreed with. To me that is reprehensible. If they wanted to have counter arguments than that makes sense and is what freedom of speech is about. For a university of all places to allow people to deny speech to others goes against the entire premise of universities.

I just don't like where this trend is going.

 

I strongly support freedom of speech, however too many people abuse this and think of it as a free ticket to offend just for the sake of causing offense.

I think freedom of speech is dying. Pres Bush once said "There ought to be limits on freedom", US newsreports of people being arrested for anti-Bush slogans, criticisms towards Israel (not Jews in general) are labelled anti-semetic, comments against Bush are anti-American (as is protesting etc) and over here we cannot condemn political parties without being labelled anti Catholic/Protestant. In England the Sun newspaper labelled "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" as anti-British and it was about British soldiers occupying Ireland!

 

Agreed, ending active debate is anathema to the democratic process. I find it very interesting at it's a conservative who's bringing this issue to light when, to my observation, the Conservatives are the worst offenders and the ones who caused most of the problem to begin with. Maybe there's hope after all!

Argohir, at least in this country the fact that it's not a good idea to say something doesn't mean that the RIGHT to say it doesn't exist. This is a very important and not terribly subtle difference. One must be prepared to accept the consequences of one's actions or words.

 

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." - Noam Chomsky.

I'm not really sure that there's such thing as 'abusing' free speech - that seems to be just another way of trying to suppress it to me. If you don't want to get offended by someone out to cause offense; grow a thicker skin.

 

When I say 'abuse' I don't mean it should be illegal, but I do think people should have common sense not to insult or hurt someone for the sake of 'excercising their right to free speech'.

Just what does free speech cover anyway? I remember reading about a NYPD officer selling images of himself wanking in his uniform, and when his superiors tried to fire him, he claimed it was 'freedom of speech'! Not too different - a lady in NY was in some sort of carnival as a mermaid and was topless, but she was arrested. Who ever heard of a swimsuit wearing mermaid anyway?

Edit - Is it true that some states have laws where it is illegal to speak a language other than English?

 

Freedom of speech does exist, to a certain degree, becouse if you take it literaly the Freedom of speech, would meen the freedom to say what you want, which even in the most democratic and free lands you cant.
Most Countries with a freedom of speech, has it limited by a law against slander.
For instance I cant call anyone a Racist in public unless i can actually proof that the person is in fact a racist.

As long as that is the only restriction on Freedom of speech, im fine with calling it freedom of speech.
But what I see in many countries to day, is a growing censur and selfcensur of opinions, i meen in many countries you cant go out and say you find the islamic laws about women wrong, bacause you might offend muslims.
Thats when there is something wrong, I meen in a democracy with freedom of speech, someone will allways disagree with you, and it is their irght, but it dosn't meen that you cant say your opinion, quite the oposit, its what freedom of speech and democracy is build on.

The most scary example of this, in my opinion, was the United states reaktion after 9/11. I meen you couldn't be against the war, you couldn't express yourself without being called a traitor and so on.
And what the tv stations did was even worse, they agreed with the goverment, that any vidoes from iraq and afghanistan should be goverment approved before aired.
And the fact that the US envoked an old law forbidding foreign journalist to go into the US, in ym opinion that was one of the worst attacks on you guys over there's freedom of speech.

Sorry my post derailed a bit. hope its kinda clear what i meen.

 

I don't think so. I think there were referendums on the idea, but I'm pretty sure they were shot down.

 

Chomsky's right here -- the antidote to bad speech is not censorship but good speech. However, you can certainly abuse free speech -- as has been said, slander, or expression of beliefs.

I may believe religiously that I need to kill my neighbor's cat, so killing my neighbor's cat would be a form of speech, but that doesn't mean I can legally kill my neighbor's cat. If someone kills my cat and points to free speech, I should not be growing a thicker skin as much as I should be looking for him to compensate me.