Freedom of speech

Brenda Cook4 said: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

Of course I see a dilemma. He posted a cartoon that two billion people across the globe find deeply offensive. No matter how much someone hides behind the shield of free speech, that fact is worth considering.
Besides, the whole point of a caricature is to make people laugh, to lighten the load of daily life, and to find some shared positive value—both for the subject and the artist.
When you look at the bigger picture, what "positive value" did this drawing actually provide, other than widening the rift between the Christian and Islamic worlds?
It's pure provocation.
And let's not ignore the blatant double standard. Those same Frenchmen would send the French Foreign Legion to teach a lesson to "primitives" from developing nations if they ever dared mock their own sacred values.

Quote : Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality
Lawrence Ferlinghetti

I don't think that quote belongs in this discussion. As far as I know, none of us are fascists. People use "free speech" to mean whatever they want, which means you can always label someone a fascist just because they disagree with your definition of liberty. The real question is what actually constitutes free speech, and if it even truly exists anymore?

Mark Torres14 said:Of course I see a dilemma. He posted a cartoon that two billion people across the globe find deeply offensive. No matter how much someone hides behind the shield of free speech, that fact is worth considering.
Besides, the whole point of a caricature is to make people laugh, to lighten the load of daily life, and to find some shared positive value—both for the subject and the artist.
When you look at the bigger picture, what "positive value" did this drawing actually provide, other than widening the rift between the Christian and Islamic worlds?
It's pure provocation.
And let's not ignore the blatant double standard. Those same Frenchmen would send the French Foreign Legion to teach a lesson to "primitives" from developing nations if they ever dared mock their own sacred values.

Quote : Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality
Lawrence Ferlinghetti

I don't think that quote belongs in this discussion. As far as I know, none of us are fascists. People use "free speech" to mean whatever they want, which means you can always label someone a fascist just because they disagree with your definition of liberty. The real question is what actually constitutes free speech, and if it even truly exists anymore?

I already gave you my answer on that: free speech doesn't exist if you start labeling a cartoon as a "provocation" or "mockery." It’s not just a lack of freedom; it’s over the top, even by medieval standards. Look at that phrase "mocking their sacred beliefs." That quote is perfectly relevant here—because if you aren't allowed to speak unless you're nodding along in agreement, or else you risk "losing your head," then that is textbook fascism. Are we going to follow this logic forever? Are we going to say it's wrong if someone "mocks" a President, or criticizes laws, court rulings, or government institutions?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
” ― George Orwell

“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.
” ― Euripides

Brenda Cook4 said:I already gave you my answer on that: free speech doesn't exist if you start labeling a cartoon as a "provocation" or "mockery." It’s not just a lack of freedom; it’s over the top, even by medieval standards. Look at that phrase "mocking their sacred beliefs." That quote is perfectly relevant here—because if you aren't allowed to speak unless you're nodding along in agreement, or else you risk "losing your head," then that is textbook fascism. Are we going to follow this logic forever? Are we going to say it's wrong if someone "mocks" a President, or criticizes laws, court rulings, or government institutions?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
” ― George Orwell

“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.
” ― Euripides

Freedom of speech is a linguistic construct, much like liberal capitalism. In its pure, unadulterated form, it doesn't exist. Reality is way more complicated, and nowadays, people slap the label of "freedom of speech" on just about everything. In this specific case, the real question is how George Orwell would react to this caricature if he were still around.
We need to distinguish between the symbols and myths representing the human drive for free expression, and actual, concrete situations where a person has to judge whether their words toward others or certain communities constitute free speech or something else entirely.
Basically, what social criteria should we actually use to decide if a society has freedom of speech or not?

Brenda Cook4 said:I already gave you my answer on that: free speech doesn't exist if you start labeling a cartoon as a "provocation" or "mockery." It’s not just a lack of freedom; it’s over the top, even by medieval standards. Look at that phrase "mocking their sacred beliefs." That quote is perfectly relevant here—because if you aren't allowed to speak unless you're nodding along in agreement, or else you risk "losing your head," then that is textbook fascism. Are we going to follow this logic forever? Are we going to say it's wrong if someone "mocks" a President, or criticizes laws, court rulings, or government institutions?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
” ― George Orwell

“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.
” ― Euripides

Freedom of speech is just as vital as freedom of action. It’s all about words.
Saying otherwise is like saying everyone should have the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what it is or the damage they cause.
I mean, what's really the difference between hitting someone and using words against them?
Except, let's be real, words can often do way more damage.

Just imagine someone stripping away your own freedoms based on a bad judgment call, or worse, labeling your spouse a predator or a criminal out of nowhere.
And don't even get me started on the "freedom" to intentionally spread lies.

wearyhawk83 said:Freedom of speech is just as vital as freedom of action. It’s all about words.
Saying otherwise is like saying everyone should have the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what it is or the damage they cause.
I mean, what's really the difference between hitting someone and using words against them?
Except, let's be real, words can often do way more damage.

Just imagine someone stripping away your own freedoms based on a bad judgment call, or worse, labeling your spouse a predator or a criminal out of nowhere.
And don't even get me started on the "freedom" to intentionally spread lies.

There is a massive distinction here. I thought I was being clear. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, we might as well say "every thought is an action." Once some high-tech brain scanner or whatever comes along that can read your mind, it's game over—your very thoughts become subject to the criminal justice system.

Brenda Cook4 said:There is a massive distinction here. I thought I was being clear. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, we might as well say "every thought is an action." Once some high-tech brain scanner or whatever comes along that can read your mind, it's game over—your very thoughts become subject to the criminal justice system.

It isn't obvious at all. If you publicly brand someone a predator, ruin their career, destroy their marriage, and ultimately drive them to suicide, that is a hell of a lot different than just arguing with them.

Brenda Cook4 said:There is a massive distinction here. I thought I was being clear. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, we might as well say "every thought is an action." Once some high-tech brain scanner or whatever comes along that can read your mind, it's game over—your very thoughts become subject to the criminal justice system.

Thoughts aren't actions. Period.

We might eventually take that next step, but only once thoughts are readable in the way
you're talking about.

So, speaking out loud—or any other way you express a thought—is an action. And just like any
other thing a person does, there has to be some level of reasonable restriction.

Maybe we can debate where exactly to draw that line,
but it's gotta exist.

Brenda Cook4 said:There is a massive distinction here. I thought I was being clear. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, we might as well say "every thought is an action." Once some high-tech brain scanner or whatever comes along that can read your mind, it's game over—your very thoughts become subject to the criminal justice system.

There is a huge difference in terms of "reach." But that’s not really about what should be legal or sanctioned.

You can't link those two things in this specific context because (at least for us regular folks😁), we don't have the ability to read or hear anyone else's thoughts yet.
And even if we did, you absolutely have to draw a line between those random, subconscious impulses that pop into your head and the actual thoughts you choose to embrace as true—the ones you decide are "yours," act on, and take full responsibility for.
Words carry way more weight than actions sometimes. I don't think it's even necessary to list all the ways words can cause damage.

Flying said:In theory, sure, but free speech isn't an absolute right. You can still be prosecuted for inciting a crime, defamation, hate speech, and things like that. The real difference between a democracy and other systems is simply that you aren't thrown in jail for criticizing the ruling party or the system itself. It basically serves as a necessary pressure valve for society.

In theory? For instance, try shouting "Allahu Akbar" in Israel, or screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
It honestly feels like free speech lacks any real logic.

Even if we allow people to criticize the party in power, it doesn't solve much. If someone decides to abuse that loophole,
like if they redefine what "criticizing the government" actually means to turn it into a criminal offense, then we might as well say goodbye to any semblance of free speech altogether.