Freedom of speech - Can we really have it?

[StringJunky]

I notice this is currently being wrestled with on the social platforms, including this one. Is it not really an unattainable aspiration because freedoms must always have limits? Where do we draw the lines between acceptable and not?

[iNow]

Depends on what you mean by “we.” As a country? In public spaces? In private spaces? In our homes? With our children? The limits will shift based on the situation. 

[Phi for All]

At least here, I think it's important to make the distinction between assertions that can be supported and those that can't. Here, most members can judge an idea on the merits of its reasoning, and even unpopular stances can be discussed if we're allowed to argue those merits, and know that all reasoned responses help make a thread meaningful and worth the time we put into it. Somebody should learn something.

Unfortunately, many of the folks that claim they aren't free to discuss a subject don't bother with a reasoned approach. We still get people who claim to have read the thread on Eugenics but then post arguments based on junk that's already been debunked or falsified. They regurgitate something they've heard or make it up in their own heads and ignore reasoned rebuttals. Nobody has time for that kind of lazy crap.

I'm hugely biased, but I think we strike a pretty good middle ground when it comes to letting folks speak freely. Even with opinion, we allow folks to speak their minds as long as they can give us some context and show their reasons. 

What about complete freedom to say anything you want? I'm profoundly uninterested in the kind of shocking, unsupported garbage most folks post when allowed to "speak freely". If the only thing I'm going to learn from the discussion is that you've had bad experiences with immigrants in the past and now have the unchangeable opinion that they should all be castrated, then it's not worth my time.

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, iNow said:

Depends on what you mean by “we.” As a country? In public spaces? In private spaces? In our homes? With our children? The limits will shift based on the situation. 

In public forums. Are the rules different for FB, Twitter etc and say here?

Edited June 5, 2020 by StringJunky

[koti]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I notice this is currently being wrestled with on the social platforms, including this one. Is it not really an unattainable aspiration because freedoms must always have limits? Where do we draw the lines between acceptable and not?

I recently departed from the general vibe of this forum after several years of gradual coming to it and I can only conclude that your question is infantile. 

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, koti said:

I recently departed from the general vibe of this forum after several years of gradual coming to it and I can only conclude that your question is infantile. 

Care to elaborate? The question encompasses forums/social media generally. What initiated the question was news that Trump's social media output is starting to get scrutinized and censored for acceptability on some platforms and, coincidentally, there are a couple of posters here who are causing controversy in a similar vein.

Edited June 5, 2020 by StringJunky

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Are the rules different for FB, Twitter etc and say here?

Yes. Here, the admins and mods make the rules and enforce them as they see fit. On our own Facebook pages we can block and delete content or people ourselves so we’re basically the mod. Similar on the Twitter. The difference with FB and Twitter are that those are corporate run platforms so the system police employed by them are like the mods and admins here (able to make and enforce the rules however they see fit). 

Edited June 5, 2020 by iNow

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. Here, the admins and mods make the rules and enforce them as they see fit. On our own Facebook pages we can block and delete content or people ourselves so we’re basically the mod. Similar on the Twitter. The difference with FB and Twitter are that those are corporate run platforms so the system police employed by them are like the mods and admins here (able to make and enforce the rules however they see fit). 

I meant the platforms as an entity, not the users employing their own conditions..

Edited June 5, 2020 by StringJunky

[Ghideon]

 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is it not really an unattainable aspiration because freedoms must always have limits?

Would freedom of speech without any kind of limits necessarily be a good thing?

I can only give a local perspective, intended as comparison and also perspective on Phi's post. Short version of one law paragraph*: No authority can require that anything must first be examined by an authority or other general body; censorship is banned**. 

Everyone has the same right to express opinion, but there may be consequences for expressing certain things. Freedom of speech is not total protection from having to be responsibility. I probably shouldn't post certain kinds of threats on my web and expect that to fall under "freedom of speech". 

AFAIK the above version of freedom of speech kind of applies to this forum? I can post whatever crap I want to without it first have to pass moderators reviews. New members don't have to start in the mod-queue and try earn points to get out. 

So my take on the question: There are, and should be, some limits on what is allowed to be posted even in freedom of speech. But limits, especially if governed by laws, should be known, communicated, transparent, enforced in good faith, possible to question and they should be stable, not invented or changed on the fly. 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Where do we draw the lines between acceptable and not?

That is trickier to answer. I guess the issue is that some members that are not posting in good faith are pretty good at inventing new kinds of stuff that is close to the line and decisions have to be made. So "where" is modified due to the invention of the  members Phi refers to, it's not static. From my experiences here the line is moved into the right place for the cases I've seen. But also important, the line does not seem to jump around a lot and it does look like a line, not some grey area. Good thing also is that we can discuss it, like this topic. I find it refreshing to think about these kind of things from time to time.

 

*) Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Sweden. 

**) There's actually one kind of censorship allowed; movies for kids are screened before getting approved for certain age.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Ghideon

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I meant the platforms as an entity, not the users employing their own conditions..

Unsure I follow. Can you expand on this?

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Unsure I follow. Can you expand on this?

platform policy.

[MigL]

First off, there is no freedom of speech on this forum.
There are limits ( read the the rules ) as to what things can be said.
But since we all agree to those rules when we join, the complaints department easily and rightfully dismisses those types of complaints.
Most other social media also have rules, to which you agree in order to participate.

As to general society, and obviously disregarding speech which may cause harm to others ( the famous yelling "fire" in a crowded building ), the gauge for free speech is not whether you yourself agree with it, or even if the vast majority of people agree with it. but rather the tolerance of society for the most vile and distasteful opinions.
( or at least, it should be )

Edited June 6, 2020 by MigL

[Sensei]

Quote

Freedom of speech - Can we really have it?

I think it is a hard candy..

Absolute freedom of speech is on forums without any moderation (i.e. when moderators and admins died, abandoned forum, lost access to forum etc. etc.).. and result is complete mess..  insults, spammers, religious extremists, political extremists, crackpots, people with mental problems ¹⁾ sharing their more or less insane ideas and eventually conspiracy theories, recruiting followers etc. etc. Such a forum is no longer a "friendly place for normal people"..

If late Hitler would appear ²⁾ on a modern Internet forum with proper moderation he would be banned quickly complaining that there is no freedom of speech on it..

 

¹⁾ It has to be taken with carefulness. e.g. communists used to call their political opponents "crazy" and eventually putting them to madhouse (because "how to not love something so cool as Communist Party?!" Person must be insane! That was their thinking and/or a way to discredit opponents with possibility to put their to "prison" without any time frames (till they will start loving Communist Party or whatever else like in "1984" Big Brother) )

²⁾ He would be 3D computer graphician, freelancer with on-line portfolio, sharing work on YouTube, FB and Instagram.. He would not have to bother about "how to get to painting studies at the university"..

[koti]

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Care to elaborate? The question encompasses forums/social media generally. What initiated the question was news that Trump's social media output is starting to get scrutinized and censored for acceptability on some platforms and, coincidentally, there are a couple of posters here who are causing controversy in a similar vein.

I thought you meant this forum, my mistake. 

 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

I thought you meant this forum, my mistake. 

 

No problemo.

[jajrussel]

I tried Facebook for a while. Yes you can friend and follow and unfollow but as of late their ads have become intrusive. Not so much in the we have something sell way. It’s their label of what constitutes an add I have relatives that are somewhat outspoken to the right and to the left. There are people I went to school with. Hmm, well it’s freedom of speech. Everything was well until about a month ago these videos start popping up that I would describe as educational propaganda they are long they are boring they are hard left or  hard right  You can’t unfollow them all you can do is tell Facebook why you don’t like their add except the reasons are multiple choice. After three days of trying to figure out what happed to my feed I quit Facebook. That’s not freedom of speech. It’s gone the way of the country. You can’t turn them off. Yes they have the right to freedom of speech but, so do I. They found a way to intrude on my freedom using the very platform that gave it. In the form of an add. My feed was no longer made up of friends and family. It was strangers with an agenda. 
There are rules and enforcers at SFN, but I’m not being told what threads to read. Nor are my choices limited to what I know or don’t know. I’m allowed to be stupid even foolish. I can be worse but I made that mistake once and don’t ever want to do it again. The moderators didn’t even have to step in. There is a sense of civility at SFN that I can’t find on my TV, in my own country, or just about any country in the world any more. I expect any day that my Internet provider will tell me that it’s either their way or the highway. Can we ever truly have freedom of speech? We’ve had it. We forgot what it looks like. If we wake up tomorrow and it’s competently gone. It’s our fault. Your question ought to be can we get it back? 
By asking the question the way you did, the appearance is that you have been letting others tell you what freedom of speech is. Assuming, that they are right, what do you as an individual want to give up, so that we can truly have freedom of speech?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I tried Facebook for a while. Yes you can friend and follow and unfollow but as of late their ads have become intrusive. Not so much in the we have something sell way. It’s their label of what constitutes an add I have relatives that are somewhat outspoken to the right and to the left. There are people I went to school with. Hmm, well it’s freedom of speech. Everything was well until about a month ago these videos start popping up that I would describe as educational propaganda they are long they are boring they are hard left or  hard right  You can’t unfollow them all you can do is tell Facebook why you don’t like their add except the reasons are multiple choice. After three days of trying to figure out what happed to my feed I quit Facebook. That’s not freedom of speech. It’s gone the way of the country. You can’t turn them off. Yes they have the right to freedom of speech but, so do I. They found a way to intrude on my freedom using the very platform that gave it. In the form of an add. My feed was no longer made up of friends and family. It was strangers with an agenda. 
There are rules and enforcers at SFN, but I’m not being told what threads to read. Nor are my choices limited to what I know or don’t know. I’m allowed to be stupid even foolish. I can be worse but I made that mistake once and don’t ever want to do it again. The moderators didn’t even have to step in. There is a sense of civility at SFN that I can’t find on my TV, in my own country, or just about any country in the world any more. I expect any day that my Internet provider will tell me that it’s either their way or the highway. Can we ever truly have freedom of speech? We’ve had it. We forgot what it looks like. If we wake up tomorrow and it’s competently gone. It’s our fault. Your question ought to be can we get it back? 
By asking the question the way you did, the appearance is that you have been letting others tell you what freedom of speech is. Assuming, that they are right, what do you as an individual want to give up, so that we can truly have freedom of speech?

Google's the same in dishing out what they want you  to see. They have both become pernicious entities.

[jajrussel]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Google's the same in dishing out what they want you  to see. They have both become pernicious entities.

I think google has taken a page out of the politicians handbook For guidance. To some degree they will let JQ Public have their way by allowIng one to delete somewhat at will. But then the algorithms kick in. I suspect they sell them cause the Trending crap that hits the news feed can be horrendous if you don’t quickly rebuild an add base. I quickly open my list of favorites and start clicking in attempt to hold them off. Am not sure how well that works, but the fact that I notice if I forget to some degree speaks for itself. Did I ever mention that I tend toward paranoia. 🤫 I’m sure they are watching now and will respond in a way they deem appropriate. Now  I have to think of some other counter measure. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by jajrussel
Had to fix a wrong word choice

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

But then the logarithms kick in. 

Did you mean algorithms?

[jajrussel]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did you mean algorithms?

Yep I think. I still have to almost constantly reinforce.  words that sound alike Are almost a sure error if I’m not careful. Thank you

 sometimes it is the keyboard choosing what it thinks I mean, but thus run I remember writing Logarithms

Edited July 15, 2020 by jajrussel

[nae]

I believe we allowed to say whatever we want. But some people abuse their right of Free speech. (e.g. Abusive language) they then justify it as "Freedom of Speech". So in the end I think people who only say negative stuff about people shouldn't be allowed to always say what they think. Of course there are exception's. Cause Positive and Negative is totally subjective.

[MigL]

6 minutes ago, nae said:

I think people who only say negative stuff about people shouldn't be allowed to always say what they think.

So who do you think should police and censor what people think ?

( And, if the above statement hurts your feelings, do you think I should be stopped from saying it ? )

Edited September 4, 2020 by MigL

[nae]

Just now, MigL said:

So who do you think should police and censor what people think ?

Police aren't trustworthy either...I just think they should practice self-control and keep whatever they have to say to themselves. I would rather not hear a person say negative stuff about people.

[MigL]

I meant 'police', the verb, not the noun.

3 minutes ago, nae said:

I would rather not hear a person say negative stuff about people.

But it's not all about YOU.

Again, if the above offends you, should I be stopped from saying it ?
And by whom ?

[nae]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I meant 'police', the verb, not the noun.

But it's not all about YOU.

Again, if the above offends you, should I be stopped from saying it ?
And by whom ?

What I meant by 'negative stuff' is things that can effect a whole denomination of people. (e.g. racism). And what I mean by racism is the type which is aimed at People of Colour. Just to clarify.

And I am aware it is not all about ME jeez...