Freedom of speech

[ClickFanatic]

Freedom of speech, or more generally, freedom of expression is a topic of all times. It is often challenged when it is used in ways that contradict established moral values or the moral values of others.

Basically we could define freedom of speech as: being allowed to say whatever you want.
We know however, that in practice this is never true. People tend to accept freedom of speech as long as it is not used to insult others. Religions often seem to be particularly sensitive to this.

I want to skip examples of scenario's where the freedom clashes with other values. You can probably think of a few yourself anyway.

What I do want to talk about is what you believe the actual definition of freedom of speech is and what you believe it should be. Under what conditions shouldn't you be allowed to say what you want?
_________________
Captain Jell-O Buster from the Future
[img]http://feeds.feedburner.com/sparepencil.1.gif[/img]

[linuxdoctor]

Definition of Freedom of Speech:

Being allowed to say what you are allowed to say.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.

If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.

[Rashy]

Right to bear arms: telling the government what you are allowed to say.
_________________
Rashy!

[ClickFanatic]

[Rashy]

I think what linuxdoctor is referring to is the numerous exceptions to the freedom of speech. From here on out, I will be specifically addressing freedom of speech in the U.S. (First Amendment) because that is what I understand the best, but I imagine similar restrictions apply in most other countries.

In the end it is the government decides what we get to say. Though we have created the "unabridged freedom of speech, or of press;" amendment, we are still limited by further laws passed by congress.

For example, it is illegal to libel or slander someone. I can't get on this website and create a post saying that you steal and sell automatic weapons to insurgents in Iraq because it would have the malicious intent of defaming you (of course, if you did and I had proof to back it up then everything would be fine and dandy... until you get thrown in the Party Van).

Also societal consensus is a form of restriction of the freedom of speech. An example: radios and televisions cannot broadcast profanity or other "adult" content during daytime T.V. because it is considered indecent. Expressions considered harmful to children cannot be displayed or said to children. That is why you must be 18 to view pornography.

Also there is a restraint on noise. I can't throw a loud rock concert on my campus without prior consent from the proper authorities. Additionally rights held by the RIAA or independent labels and artists prevent me from playing music that isn't my own in a public place, or for a demonstration/protest. (Actually I'm not 100% sure here, fair use laws are really murky right now).

Protests and demonstrations themselves are being limited, which as you can imagine I am highly upset about. On March 15 this year, several people were arrested by DeKalb for not having a "license to protest," basically saying that you can't speak out against an organization unless the Executive branch says you can speak out. Use your imagination to guess how this could be abused (no more protesting a president you don't like?).

There are somethings you simply cannot say because it could bring harm to others, a classic example is falsely yelling "fire" in a theatre, or stating the intent to harm an individual ("fighting words").

Here is a fairly good paper on the limitations of the freedom of speech (as applied to the U.S.): http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf
_________________
Rashy!

[coralvalley]

In it's purest form, freedom of speech should be the right and the ability to say whatever it is that is on your mind and what you feel is of importance in your world. I realize that while in the raw, most literal form of freedom of speech you should have the right to say absolutely anything that you want to and whatever comes to your mind should be able to be pushed out there without any limitations upon it.

However, in the reality of the world that we live in, it simply isn't that simple. The truth to the matter is that if we all truly had the freedom of speech in the literal sense that we could say anything that we want, we would probably living in a world of chaos because what I might feel is my right to say might be something that someone else feels that it is their right not to have to listen to. With the various differing opinions that are out there in the world, I think that the freedom of speech is a very dangerous thing if and only if the right is abused. In some countries they are not given the ability to speak their mind for fear of the consequences of such said actions their words might fuel against the world around them.

Ideally while I would define freedom of speech as the ability to say what it is that you feel like whenever the thought comes to you, in the real world I would imagine that the limitations that I would put on freedom of speech would come to mind when it would be something that could cause harm to another individual. I think racially motivated comments and hateful statements especially when they are unfounded and slanderous of another individual simply because another person feels a certain way about something should not be allowed. For example, if I hate my chemistry teacher I should not be able to go around and say that the teacher is a bad person who breaks the law and various other acts simply because I do not like them. Especially when my words are untrue as you see in the media a lot of the time in gossip magazines. So in short my definition of freedom of speech would be for a person to be able to speak their mind within the limitations of reason and common sense when in public. What you say behind closed doors to those whom are in your inner circle is another matter as long as you do not use your words to hurt others. If you are venting in your own private space that is perfectly allowed, but when your words open up an act of violence or destruction, then in my opinion there should be some kind of limitations upon what is acceptable.

[LP-Shirl]