There is a chronic misunderstanding among TWC members about what freedom of speech actually means

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The level of misunderstanding has reached such a ridiculous extent that I feel it necessary to create this thread dispelling common myths about it. Ironically it seems like the only people around here who actually understand it are our far-right-wing members ().

I'll throw out the Wikipedia definition to start with:

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or both.

Notice that it does not include the freedom to speak freely without criticism or consequences. Yet every now and then someone makes a thread about how some political figure is against freedom of speech because they were offended by an insult. They are not against freedom speech. In fact anyone who suggests they don't have every right to be offended is against freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want. It doesn't mean what you say won't have consequences, it's just that no one will prevent you from saying it. You have every right to approach a friend and start insulting them in every way possible, but they don't have to suck it up and still like you. You have every right to insult a prospective customer of your business as much as you like, but that doesn't mean he can't get upset and refuse to purchase from you. You have every right to tell the world about how someone you know lost his penis in an accident, but that doesn't mean he won't feel betrayed, think you're a douche and suddenly decide to claim that money you owe him.

Freedom of speech isn't a right to say what you like and get away with it, it's just a right to say what you like. It's like your right to go BASE jumping: noone is going to prevent you enjoying that sport, but that doesn't mean you can't die taking part. There are quite a few members here who need to realise this.

[CiviC]

So if a Iranian disident is free to say whatever he wants in public, but then the Revolution Guardians take him and beat him for what he said, we have freedom of speech in Iran? Hey we won't prevent you to say what you think, but then you have to suffer the consequences! Next time think better before using "freedom" of speech!

[Stark of Winterfell]

Freedom of speech means that you won't be imprisoned for what you say, unless you're going on a rant about assassinating the president or something and sound serious. It means that you can speak, and others can criticize you. Not take you away and beat you. That is not freedom of speech. I don't think anyone is claiming that; at least I hope not.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

So if a Iranian disident is free to say whatever he wants in public, but then the Revolution Guardians take him and beat him for what he said, we have freedom of speech in Iran? Hey we won't prevent you to say what you think, but then you have to suffer the consequences! Next time think better before using "freedom" of speech!

that's preventing someonue from speaking; it's judicial punishment for doing something you shouldn't have, which is ridiculous.

What part of my post do you disagree with?

[CiviC]

The OP makes refference more to a physical freedom of speech, but you must have also the psychological freedom of speech, you have to know you won't suffer unjust consequences. Even heavy fines or harassement in courts or firing from job is an infrigement to freedom of speech.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Removal of the tongue removes freedom of speech.You can be done for slander deformation of character and as in the case of julian assange be called a terrorist.Also incitement to hatred is a law to stop muslim imams besmurching the USA.So do we have free speech yes?And we have legal consequences.

[CiviC]

Removal of the tongue removes freedom of speech.

And removal of fingers, too.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Freedom of Speech means not getting punished for talking your mind.

This does not include actual use of the spoken word within a particular context to incite violence and harm against third parties.

[CiviC]

This does not include actual use of the spoken word within a particular context to incite violence and harm against third parties.

That's the tricky part authoritarian regimes use to quiet the disidents.

[Claudius Gothicus]

That's the tricky part authoritarian regimes use to quiet the disidents.

No, it's only tricky because authoritarian regimes extend the latter rule to all contexts or just inappropriate ones.

Calling for the burning of synagogues or churches or Mosques in front of a large ideologically fueled crowd in the middle of a(catholic, Jewish or Muslim) neighborhood is not freedom of speech is provocative, reckless and plain ill intended.

It's a case by case attitude, if the speaker can(within the context) overrule the internal logic of the individual and manipulate them into a collective mass then there you have a responsible idiot who should be punished according to the consequences of the following acts.

I'm not against racists, Nazis or hard line communists spouting their sociopath bullcrap I only think that context is king with this things. They can talk on TV all they want, they can protest(within a secure environment of course) all they want and they can write all they want but they won't be allowed to override individual rational thinking in a fueled up situation.

It's just my take on free speech, and let me say it's IMO the correct and less costly one.

[HissingNewt]

I'm guessing this was made because of the latest Geert Wilders thread? But yeah, it seemed necessary.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I'm guessing this was made because of the latest Geert Wilders thread? But yeah, it seemed necessary.

I was made because every radical-Muslim vs anti-Muslim thread usually ends up with the badly informed fellas and the seriously ill intended ones making heavily biased definitions of what basic rights or freedoms are and none takes the time to really refute them.

[HissingNewt]

I was made because every radical-Muslim vs anti-Muslim thread usually ends up with the badly informed fellas and the seriously ill intended ones making heavily biased definitions of what basic rights or freedoms are and none takes the time to really refute them.

Yes, but there was something that triggered the creation of this thread. Something that made him go "I think this is necessary now." But yes, those threads always end up with both sides distorting things to fit them.

I do think there's limited free speech and that you must deal with the consequences of your words, so that's really where I stand on this.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Yes it was the Geert Wilders thread that triggered this, although many of Mongrel's threads and Ferret's posts, among many others have contributed to this.

[Squiggle]

Yes it was the Geert Wilders thread that triggered this, although many of Mongrel's threads and Ferret's posts, among many others have contributed to this.

Yeah that thread was pretty embarrassing.

[Nikitn]

hard line communists

??? since when was communism even close to the same level as nazism? the word you are looking for is totalitarianists

[Jingles]

Hardline Marxist-Leninists can be just as nutty as Nazis at times. I know - I've met them.

[The Dude]

Unfortunately, while well intentioned, the OP also manages to misdefine freedom of speech.

In its barest essence, freedom of speech is about being allowed to say what you to have to say without having to fear persecution. The OP equates freedom of speech to the right to insult. The latter is most definitely not the former.

In a country where freedom of speech is limited, the right to insult is still actively practiced and more rarely reprimanded. You can call your neighbour the worst imaginable insult and the law does nothing, whereas if you criticise the government you find yourself locked up and tortured. North Korea is a stellar example of this, where I have seen footage of citizens calling patrolling soldiers names and getting away with it.

Freedom of speech is not the right to insult. And so, being offended by an insult and wishing to take action against it does not in any way impair freedom of speech. There is a grey area here, and that is leaders pretending that political criticism is somehow insulting and must therefore be excluded from the public debate. This is something that a critical and educated population must at all times be on the lookout for.

But Geert Wilders taking offense at being compared to Hitler does not even come close to such a thing.