Freedom of speech

An intriguing topic.

Freedom of speech is typically enshrined in the constitution of any democratic nation—which means even Nazis or racists technically hold that right. However, it is incredibly difficult to prosecute someone simply for their words—and it becomes even more complicated if those words are documented. This is where other legal frameworks—which almost all American democracies possess—come into play; they dictate that while you have free speech, you do not have the freedom to threaten national minorities or target anyone based on their sexual orientation, religion, or political beliefs.

Many Western nations have laws prohibiting the use of a person's name or private data—such as photos, for instance—on the internet or in other media without their explicit written consent.

So, if I were to launch a website today using the name and photo of some individual just to call them an idiot, mock their sexuality, target their religious beliefs, or out their political affiliation... that person could potentially sue me into oblivion because the law is firmly on their side.

In the country where I live—a Western democracy—if a friend posts my photo on Facebook without my permission, I can take them to court—and in this scenario, the law is on my side. A judge could order them to remove the image and perhaps even impose a fine...

I suppose I’ve gone a bit far with this—but I believe I’ve made my point...

.. double post

Paul Anderson2 said:Well, those kinds of things happen. Freedom definitely has its dark side, I guess, but it really depends on the culture. If a society is just waiting to believe every single accusation without seeing any actual evidence, maybe that society isn't quite ready for total freedom of speech.

Fine. On one level, you can just ignore the individual. If they don't have any real influence, they can scream whatever they want, whenever they want. People will just write them off as crazy, drunk, or some delusional messiah... whatever. But that kind of "freedom" is basically useless. It’s the classic "you can say what you want, but you can't actually do anything" scenario.
It's a totally different story when a major media outlet steps in, claiming to speak for "freedom of speech" on behalf of a group, a community, or even the state. That's when someone—whether you agree with them or not—is essentially speaking for you, presenting their own version of reality to the public under the guise of your rights.
So, is free speech something that can be institutionalized through representation? Like, does having millions of readers at The New York Times mean those readers automatically back everything printed there? Or is free speech a supra-democratic principle—something that democracy itself must obey in order to actually function as a democracy? In the first case, "truth" is just whatever the majority thinks. In the second, "truth" is simply whatever follows the established rules.

Mark Torres14 said:Let me push this further. If a person isn't allowed to speak, do they even have free speech?
I’m being serious here. We talk about free speech as this grand social concept. But at its core, it should mean we can discuss any value or situation without facing total ruin.
Look at this scenario: Someone runs a story in the New York Times claiming you're a predator. You're furious, so you sue to clear your name, but in the meantime, you get fired, your neighbors shun you, your spouse takes their own life, and your kids disown you. Then, the journalist hides behind "freedom of the press" to protect their sources.
In the end, it turns out you were innocent all along. So what now?
Are those of us who love to dissect other people's lives, religions, and opinions—all while hiding behind the shield of "free speech"—actually enlightened enough to let others do the same using their own standards of truth? Or do we just laugh it off as "free speech"?
Basically, where do we draw the line on free speech in society?

But honestly, if you blow up and start suing everyone when some fake news story hits, you just end up looking guilty to the public.
On the flip side, if you just shrug it off and carry on with your life, you might dodge that whole catastrophic domino effect triggered by some sensationalist hack looking for clicks.

says:
Look, if you sue someone just because they started some fake story about you, you’re just going to look guilty.
On the flip side, if you just ignore it and keep doing your thing, you won't trigger that domino effect caused by some tabloid journalist looking for a cheap headline.

That guy was just an example. I'm talking about values.
I want to know if an individual—or a whole group—can use free speech to broadcast a public opinion (whether through the media or otherwise) regarding someone else's core values (like family, religion, or privacy), even if the person being targeted sees it as an insult or a lie. And obviously, it works both ways.
I get that there isn't one simple answer here since every situation is different.
But how do we draw the line between actual free speech and deliberate provocation, insults, smear campaigns, cynicism, or irony... things designed specifically to tear down and discredit someone just because they hold a different worldview or disagree with us?
Doesn't free speech actually require the freedom for dialogue?

Free speech is basically an oxymoron.

I tend to look at language itself as this tool for dominance—sort of like how any structured system works to suppress ideas that might shake up the symbolic order. In that sense, speech is inherently unfree, because every single thing we say carries this extra layer of meaning—this ideological baggage—that exists just to narcissistically reaffirm the authority of the great second.

Take this, for instance: nobody is actually going to arrest me legally for saying that during the World War II Axis occupation, there was a mass slaughter of Mexicans. But if I actually go out and say it? Some local American patriot is going to jump down my throat and label me some kind of anti-American radical, simply because within our national discourse, highlighting those specific victims gets lumped in with foreign nationalist agendas.

So, speech ends up acting as its own inhibitor. We can only really pretend "freedom of speech" exists if we cling to this flawed theory that language is just a permissive way to communicate—which, honestly, it just isn't.

The real question is, how much does "freedom of speech" actually matter when the media holds the only microphone? It’s like being told you have total freedom of movement, but you don't have any arms or legs. You can think whatever you want, sure—no one can take away the thoughts inside your head—but 😁

Andrew Hayes8 said:So, let me see if I have this straight,
some group, nation, or religion can act however they please, regardless of how much your own sanity tells you it’s wrong
and you're just expected to respect that and stay silent, simply because that's "their way"
It has been known since ancient times that the truth hurts most
but that doesn't mean it should go unsaid
In any case, I stand for freedom of speech; someone who has nothing to hide
has absolutely no reason to fear what others might say
The truth should always prevail
Human relationships would be far more transparent and straightforward if people actually said what they truly thought

Are you equating freedom of speech with the truth?
And you honestly believe what someone "actually thinks" is synonymous with the truth?

That's a mistake.

Does the truth hurt?
And does a lie feel any better?

In a philosophy department, one would hope to move past these kinds of tired platitudes.

Mark Torres14 said:

says:
Look, if you sue someone just because they started some fake story about you, you’re just going to look guilty.
On the flip side, if you just ignore it and keep doing your thing, you won't trigger that domino effect caused by some tabloid journalist looking for a cheap headline.

That guy was just an example. I'm talking about values.
I want to know if an individual—or a whole group—can use free speech to broadcast a public opinion (whether through the media or otherwise) regarding someone else's core values (like family, religion, or privacy), even if the person being targeted sees it as an insult or a lie. And obviously, it works both ways.
I get that there isn't one simple answer here since every situation is different.
But how do we draw the line between actual free speech and deliberate provocation, insults, smear campaigns, cynicism, or irony... things designed specifically to tear down and discredit someone just because they hold a different worldview or disagree with us?
Doesn't free speech actually require the freedom for dialogue?

I think you realize that words possess a certain efficacy, don't you? They carry weight. They have the power to build up or tear down.
A word remains heavy with responsibility even when an irresponsible person is the one wielding it.
Perhaps freedom of speech isn't really about measuring how much we are permitted to say, but rather how much we are held accountable for what we choose to utter.
Quite a thought, wouldn't you agree?

Boundaries don't exist
If you ask me, it’s probably better to just keep your mouth shut and blend in with the crowd

But then again, some people feel obligated to break the ice while everyone else is just lying around doing nothing

And there you are, meticulously putting the pieces together and wondering why things turned out this way

Mark Torres14 said:A French newspaper drops a caricature of Muhammad, hiding behind "free speech" traditions and their precious little darling: "freedom of expression." A Russian punk band dances in an Orthodox church shouting slogans against Putin, claiming "freedom of speech." Some journalist leaks your private info or a photo of you without your consent, citing "freedom of speech."

Just think about what would happen in the "real world" if every single person used their right to "free speech" to say exactly what they actually think to every other person, group, or community.

What even is free speech, and does it actually have limits?

Nothing would change, and nothing should change, because—to answer the second question—freedom of speech isn't truly "free" since it comes with boundaries. Those boundaries are what we call verbal offenses. And let's be honest: verbal offenses are pretty much the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Another thing to note before we engage with the harm principle is that we are in fact free to speak as we like. Hence, Freedom of speech differs from other types of free action. if the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available; current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree. //Encyclopedia Britannica//

Brenda Cook4 said:Nothing would change, and nothing should change, because—to answer the second question—freedom of speech isn't truly "free" since it comes with boundaries. Those boundaries are what we call verbal offenses. And let's be honest: verbal offenses are pretty much the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Another thing to note before we engage with the harm principle is that we are in fact free to speak as we like. Hence, Freedom of speech differs from other types of free action. if the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available; current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree. //Encyclopedia Britannica//

Wait, what? Sometimes I just post my honest opinion on here and get a warning or a ban... is that supposed to be a punishment for a "verbal offense"??

rapidbear65 said:Wait, what? Sometimes I just post my honest opinion on here and get a warning or a ban... is that supposed to be a punishment for a "verbal offense"??

It’s not just an "hmm," it's a legitimate little verbal infraction since you've been hit with a warning and a ban. Even being extremely careful with self-censorship doesn't always cut it anymore. That's just the state of the world today—everything feels sanitized and polished, with freedom of speech existing in only tiny fragments. The internet started out with a completely different spirit, guided by ideas like “the Net interprets censorship as damage, and routs around it“ but we aren't living in that era anymore. Nowadays, we're stuck dealing with things like SOPA and PIPA...

Brenda Cook4 said:Nothing would change, and nothing should change, because—to answer the second question—freedom of speech isn't truly "free" since it comes with boundaries. Those boundaries are what we call verbal offenses. And let's be honest: verbal offenses are pretty much the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Another thing to note before we engage with the harm principle is that we are in fact free to speak as we like. Hence, Freedom of speech differs from other types of free action. if the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available; current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree. //Encyclopedia Britannica//

Can you actually give me one single example of freedom of speech that isn't restricted by something?😕🤷

Sam Thomas said:Are you equating freedom of speech with the truth?
And you honestly believe what someone "actually thinks" is synonymous with the truth?

That's a mistake.

Does the truth hurt?
And does a lie feel any better?

In a philosophy department, one would hope to move past these kinds of tired platitudes.

I am not equating anything. Free speech simply provides the avenue for the truth to be spoken.
Of course, it also allows for lies to be told.
(And she writes that the truth hurts most, which doesn't change the fact that a lie can sting just as much).

Mark Torres14 said:Can you actually give me one single example of freedom of speech that isn't restricted by something?😕🤷

I can't really give you an example from this planet or this particular incarnation, if I’m following your question correctly. As I mentioned before, freedom of speech is restricted everywhere—to varying degrees, sure, but it's universal. Honestly, even using the phrase "freedom of speech" feels a bit misplaced. It’s more of a myth than a reality. If we were to approach this from a philosophical standpoint, we shouldn't just argue about the limits; we should go back to the very foundation. We need to look at what the concept of "human rights" actually represents—both as an idea and as a practice. These rights were essentially spun out of the Enlightenment era, but let's be real: they are myths too. It's all just a sophisticated form of social control. You're granted exactly as much liberty as the powers that be decide is acceptable at any given moment. Then there's the idea of a "state of nature." Think about a cat. A cat meows when it wants to meow and howl whenever it damn well pleases. That’s instinct. If we're talking about true, raw expression, that's where the comparison lies.

Brenda Cook4 said:I can't really give you an example from this planet or this particular incarnation, if I’m following your question correctly. As I mentioned before, freedom of speech is restricted everywhere—to varying degrees, sure, but it's universal. Honestly, even using the phrase "freedom of speech" feels a bit misplaced. It’s more of a myth than a reality. If we were to approach this from a philosophical standpoint, we shouldn't just argue about the limits; we should go back to the very foundation. We need to look at what the concept of "human rights" actually represents—both as an idea and as a practice. These rights were essentially spun out of the Enlightenment era, but let's be real: they are myths too. It's all just a sophisticated form of social control. You're granted exactly as much liberty as the powers that be decide is acceptable at any given moment. Then there's the idea of a "state of nature." Think about a cat. A cat meows when it wants to meow and howl whenever it damn well pleases. That’s instinct. If we're talking about true, raw expression, that's where the comparison lies.

Fine. But if you look at it that way, "freedom of speech" isn't a philosophical concept anymore. It becomes a sociological one, where the actual maturity of a society acts as the line between true freedom of speech and just having the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want.
What got me started on this was the editor of a newspaper invoking freedom of speech after publishing a cartoon. Nowadays, you could make the same argument for an American magazine that publishes explicit imagery.
Is that really how it works?

Mark Torres14 said:Fine. But if you look at it that way, "freedom of speech" isn't a philosophical concept anymore. It becomes a sociological one, where the actual maturity of a society acts as the line between true freedom of speech and just having the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want.
What got me started on this was the editor of a newspaper invoking freedom of speech after publishing a cartoon. Nowadays, you could make the same argument for an American magazine that publishes explicit imagery.
Is that really how it works?

Seriously? He published a cartoon, and you're asking me if that's "right"? Look, we’re balancing the right to criticize—which is free speech—against censorship, oppression, and tyranny. So, what would be "right"? We have to remember that humanity fought incredibly hard, and quite silently, just to reach this level of liberty. Now, suddenly, we should introduce "special pleading" for religion or certain "sacred" topics? Or start using terms like "offensiveness" and "respectability" to limit discourse? You see a dilemma here? I don't.

People are not disturbed by things,
but by the view they take of them.
- Epictetus

It's just like:

Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality, which exists in all parts of the world, unfortunately.
Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Mark Torres14 said:Fine. On one level, you can just ignore the individual. If they don't have any real influence, they can scream whatever they want, whenever they want. People will just write them off as crazy, drunk, or some delusional messiah... whatever. But that kind of "freedom" is basically useless. It’s the classic "you can say what you want, but you can't actually do anything" scenario.
It's a totally different story when a major media outlet steps in, claiming to speak for "freedom of speech" on behalf of a group, a community, or even the state. That's when someone—whether you agree with them or not—is essentially speaking for you, presenting their own version of reality to the public under the guise of your rights.
So, is free speech something that can be institutionalized through representation? Like, does having millions of readers at The New York Times mean those readers automatically back everything printed there? Or is free speech a supra-democratic principle—something that democracy itself must obey in order to actually function as a democracy? In the first case, "truth" is just whatever the majority thinks. In the second, "truth" is simply whatever follows the established rules.

I don't know—talking is its own kind of action, and honestly, everything we do has to have some limits.

Brenda Cook4 said:It’s not just an "hmm," it's a legitimate little verbal infraction since you've been hit with a warning and a ban. Even being extremely careful with self-censorship doesn't always cut it anymore. That's just the state of the world today—everything feels sanitized and polished, with freedom of speech existing in only tiny fragments. The internet started out with a completely different spirit, guided by ideas like “the Net interprets censorship as damage, and routs around it“ but we aren't living in that era anymore. Nowadays, we're stuck dealing with things like SOPA and PIPA...

damn right...