Freedom of speech - Can we really have it?

[Charles 3781]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

No, they're a reply to sophistry.

To show that some things can't be allowed, by constitutional right, to be spoken at any time a person feels like it.

No, it's to show that some things can't be allowed, by constitutional right, to be spoken at any time a person feels like it. What a bizarre strawman, btw. I'm sorry you feel so intellectually cornered that you resort to fallacy. Is it because you don't understand what free speech is in this context?

 

Phi, I'm not  "intellectually cornered" as you put it.  I just wonder why some intellectual persons such as yourself, can't seem to discuss political questions without resorting to terms like  "SHOOT" "FIRE" and  "POISON GAS" . 

The use of such terms conveys a very unfavourable impression.   Don't they make you, and others of your ilk, appear emotive, violent, and potentially extremely dangerous.

At least that's the way it seems to me.  You sound quite scary!

 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Phi, I'm not  "intellectually cornered" as you put it.  I just wonder why some intellectual persons such as yourself, can't seem to discuss political questions without resorting to terms like  "SHOOT" "FIRE" and  "POISON GAS" . 

The use of such terms conveys a very unfavourable impression.   Don't they make you, and others of your ilk, appear emotive, violent, and potentially extremely dangerous.

At least that's the way it seems to me.  You sound quite scary!

 

Have you any better examples of speech not protected by the first amendment?

[MigL]

As an example of 'free' speech, you can use any of the above words, "Fire', "Shoot" and "Poison Gas" in a sentence, so as to express an idea.

"I should be able to kill SNAKES by SHOOTing, POISON GAS or FIRE"

See, no problem.

 

[MSC]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

As an example of 'free' speech, you can use any of the above words, "Fire', "Shoot" and "Poison Gas" in a sentence, so as to express an idea.

"I should be able to kill SNAKES by SHOOTing, POISON GAS or FIRE"

See, no problem.

 

Agreed. Individual words said in a vacuum don't mean that much. Context makes the difference.

[Charles 3781]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

As an example of 'free' speech, you can use any of the above words, "Fire', "Shoot" and "Poison Gas" in a sentence, so as to express an idea.

"I should be able to kill SNAKES by SHOOTing, POISON GAS or FIRE"

See, no problem.

 

That's very pretty, Migl.  Completely irrelevant, and not even all that ingenious, but a worthy reply.

[MigL]

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

Context makes the difference.

Not exactly.
Ideas are protected by 'free' speech.
Inciting people to dangerous actions, is not.
( yelling "FIRE" in a theater incites a stampede and people get hurt )

[Charles 3781]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Have you any better examples of speech not protected by the first amendment?

I'm not sure about the First Amendment, and what protection it confers under your written Constitution.  That's a matter for you Americans.

We British have been wise enough not to even attempt drawing up a written constitution. Such a thing can only create a field of mayhem for lawyers to dispute over.  As you keep finding out in the US.  With your lately occurring paralyses of Government and embarrassingly abortive impeachment trials of your President.

Here in the UK, we stick to an un-written constitution.  This is vastly preferable. Because when the constitution isn't written down, the lawyers can never find documentary evidence to impeach a Prime Minister for violating it.

Doesn't that make sense?

 

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

I'm not sure about the First Amendment, and what protection it confers under your written Constitution.  That's a matter for you Americans.

Fair enough, but that’s the context of the comments about shouting fire, gas or snakes.

 

[Charles 3781]

Just now, swansont said:

Fair enough, but that’s the context of the comments about shouting fire, gas or snakes.

 

You Americans are more used to firing guns and shooting each other, so I defer on that point,  As regards gas and snakes, neither of our two peoples has yet employed such methods, so it remains a hypothetical, and probably quite impracticable scenario for future civil unrest in our respective countries.

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

You Americans are more used to firing guns and shooting each other, so I defer on that point, 

Yeah, that’s relevant...

Quote

As regards gas and snakes, neither of our two peoples has yet employed such methods, so it remains a hypothetical, and probably quite impracticable scenario for future civil unrest in our respective countries.

Gas and snakes are hypothetical? WTAF are you talking about?

[Charles 3781]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yeah, that’s relevant...

Gas and snakes are hypothetical? WTAF are you talking about?

OK, Ok, I retract the gas bit.  Tear-gas has been fired at protesting crowds by your US enforcement agencies.  But  to my knowledge, the US has not yet made use of a snake, unless you count your President.

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Phi, I'm not  "intellectually cornered" as you put it.  I just wonder why some intellectual persons such as yourself, can't seem to discuss political questions without resorting to terms like  "SHOOT" "FIRE" and  "POISON GAS" . 

The use of such terms conveys a very unfavourable impression.   Don't they make you, and others of your ilk, appear emotive, violent, and potentially extremely dangerous.

At least that's the way it seems to me.  You sound quite scary!

Wow, I've never tried to discuss anything with someone who's blind to context. You really can't see why I used those particular words wrt the freedom of speech argument EvaWillis89 made? That would explain this strawman. 

17 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

You Americans are more used to firing guns and shooting each other, so I defer on that point,  As regards gas and snakes, neither of our two peoples has yet employed such methods, so it remains a hypothetical, and probably quite impracticable scenario for future civil unrest in our respective countries.

Oh, I see. Arguing in bad faith about our first amendment so you can sneak in a poke at our second. 

 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

OK, Ok, I retract the gas bit.  Tear-gas has been fired at protesting crowds by your US enforcement agencies.  But  to my knowledge, the US has not yet made use of a snake, unless you count your President.

Still not making sense. This is about a person’s speech, not government acts. Claiming there’s a fire, or to smell gas (the additive in natural gas) or see snakes to incite panic.

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

A number of off-topic posts were hidden. Please try to stay on topic. 

 

 

[CharonY]

There is an article in the NYTimes talking about this topic, specifically the issues with free speech in a time where disinformation is rampant. The viewpoint is obviously US-centric, focusing on the first amendment. However, it also contrasts it is with European system. A pretty good read.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html

[CharonY]

It occurs to me that we should amend the common example of shouting "Fire" in a packed cinema, with the example of: tweeting "COVID-19 (or whatever outbreak we have at any given time) is harmless. Go out and get exposed"

[molbol2000]

On 6/5/2020 at 10:32 PM, 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?

Lie is limit(conceptually)

Actually, modern censure is political, it not have deal with moral or conception, this is simple interests of group of people, that hold power

This is not differ from incvisition

[Mike12]

I think the toughest free speech is the speech about changing the government that has protections for free speech. What were the fruits of that work? Making people confused about government? The fruits of talking freely in free speech about altering or abolishing government is possibly against free speech and also arrogant. Governor George Wallace said "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre", "Free speech isn't an unlimited right". Where did it end up, saying that "Free Men" can roll back the clock and have Less Regulation, an unspeakable dangerous thing that "Free Men" rolled back the constitution of 30 amendments telling you what to do. Invoking the protection of the God of the Fathers of this Nation, a Nation from the Independence Declaration, government abolished or established by the people.

Edited October 21, 2020 by Mike12

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

Where did it end up,

You talking bollox...

[Mike12]

I don't have a way to find out what "rito" is @dimreepr had used on the other post just now.  Does Bollox mean you want me to change something there?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Mike12 said:

I don't have a way to find out what "rito" is @dimreepr had used on the other post just now.  Does Bollox mean you want me to change something there?

Rito, is when freedom makes sense...bla bla, is what you said... 

[Mike12]

The word "Rito" still doesn't show up in any searches in that context. That was in connection to evolution in schools?

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

The word "Rito" still doesn't show up in any searches in that context. That was in connection to evolution in schools?

Rito, just means, I don't really care...

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

Governor George Wallace said "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre",

No, he did not. That was Justice Holmes. 

Not only are your posts incoherent, but the few parts which actually parse are also laden with falsehoods and disinformation. 

[Phi for All]

43 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

I think the toughest free speech is the speech about changing the government that has protections for free speech. What were the fruits of that work? Making people confused about government? The fruits of talking freely in free speech about altering or abolishing government is possibly against free speech and also arrogant. Governor George Wallace said "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre", "Free speech isn't an unlimited right". Where did it end up, saying that "Free Men" can roll back the clock and have Less Regulation, an unspeakable dangerous thing that "Free Men" rolled back the constitution of 30 amendments telling you what to do. Invoking the protection of the God of the Fathers of this Nation, a Nation from the Independence Declaration, government abolished or established by the people.

!

Moderator Note

Discussion requires that all participants reply with coherent arguments. You have a problem with the way you present ideas. If it's a style you've adopted, get rid of it immediately, for your own sake if not ours. If you're a bot spamming some bizarre agenda, stay away. If your next post is in this same incoherent format, I'm just going to boot you. We don't have enough staff currently to keep up with this kind of obstacle to learning.