The Philosophy Of Freedom Of Speech.

[disobey]

  Freedom of speech is absolutely essential.  Everywhere.  Even at "private" forums who obviously found a loophole around the cornerstone of the most fundamental and important human right of all.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH!.  But don't take my word for it.  Consider what these people of note had to say on the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sensei]

You are mixing "freedom of speech" with "freedom to spread hatred"..

 

BTW, it is "funny" that you showed some politicians. Isn't it the job of the speaker of parliament to silence parliamentarians?

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, disobey said:

  Freedom of speech is absolutely essential.  Everywhere.  Even at "private" forums who obviously found a loophole around the cornerstone of the most fundamental and important human right of all.

It doesn't seem like a good faith argument to defend certain human rights while spewing hatred for whole groups of humans at the same time. Does that seem right to anybody?

[TheVat]

 

30 minutes ago, disobey said:

  Freedom of speech is absolutely essential.  Everywhere

Define essential.  Define everywhere.  

The right of free expression has never extended to the right to harm others or foment harm.  You can make a movie where someone burns down a building, but you can't burn down the moviehouse, no matter how well it might express something.  Nor can you shout FIRE! in said moviehouse if there isn't one.  And no one in your mega meme dump would suggest there be such a freedom to harm others.

 

[Steve81]

Freedom of speech reminds me of the infinite monkey theorem. Humans aren’t infinite in number of course, and we’re apes as opposed to monkeys, but the same general idea applies. Some good stuff can come out of it, assuming you can filter out the noise.

[swansont]

Rights are between you and the government. Freedom of speech, in terms of the US first amendment, means the government can’t censor you. Forums, in general, are not government entities.

Some more quotes for you

“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” — Carl Sagan

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert L. Park.

And this:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

[StringJunky]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Rights are between you and the government. Freedom of speech, in terms of the US first amendment, means the government can’t censor you. Forums, in general, are not government entities.

Some more quotes for you

“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” — Carl Sagan

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert L. Park.

And this:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Are the big social media companies bound by US law to allow freedom of speech, as it pertains to government, or are they just as free to censor according to their own rules, like small discussion sites? 

Is it just adverse political exposure/noise that forces them to change?

Edited August 4, 2023 by StringJunky

[joigus]

I thought this might be a meaty topic of discussion --based on the title--, instead I find what looks very much like a hall of fame of people with receding hairline through history.

[exchemist]

14 hours ago, disobey said:

  Freedom of speech is absolutely essential.  Everywhere.  Even at "private" forums who obviously found a loophole around the cornerstone of the most fundamental and important human right of all.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH!.  But don't take my word for it.  Consider what these people of note had to say on the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one is stopping you marching up and down Piccadilly, or Madison Ave, with this stuff on a placard and a loudhailer. So your free speech rights are not infringed in any way. 

But there is no reason why a science forum can't have its own rules of membership, which put some constraints on the type of stuff it allows to be shown on its discussion boards.

You are not the first to make the mistake of confusing legal rights to free speech with membership rules on a forum.

 

[TheVat]

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Are the big social media companies bound by US law to allow freedom of speech, as it pertains to government, or are they just as free to censor according to their own rules, like small discussion sites? 

Is it just adverse political exposure/noise that forces them to change?

While media websites are legally seen as akin to publishers, i.e. they don't have to accept content they don't want, they do respond to pressures to fulfill certain promises like, say, all opinions are welcome.  Always there is a tension between a good faith attempt to have free discourse, and the need to ban hateful invective, slander, harassment of members, fraudulent information and other behaviors that would drive people away or turn conversations into flame wars.  It seems like a really difficult balance.  If you get the balance wrong, you can have either a boring expanse of insipid agreement, like a Puritan quilting bee, or a saloon taken over by desperados firing guns in the air and pissing in every corner.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

While media websites are legally seen as akin to publishers, i.e. they don't have to accept content they don't want, they do respond to pressures to fulfill certain promises like, say, all opinions are welcome.  Always there is a tension between a good faith attempt to have free discourse, and the need to ban hateful invective, slander, harassment of members, fraudulent information and other behaviors that would drive people away or turn conversations into flame wars.  It seems like a really difficult balance.  If you get the balance wrong, you can have either a boring expanse of insipid agreement, like a Puritan quilting bee, or a saloon taken over by desperados firing guns in the air and pissing in every corner.

Thanks.

[mistermack]

Speech is not free online. It's a myth, and quite right too. 

It's free, in your own room, on your own, if you keep your voice down. Anywhere else, it's subject to the opinions of others. 

Burst into a Catholic funeral for a baby, shouting that there's no god, and they have every right to shut you up. Make that claim in a discussion forum, and people might debate it with you. 

It's bloody obvious stuff. People don't have to listen to assholes, if they don't want to. Unless they are in prison.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Are the big social media companies bound by US law to allow freedom of speech, as it pertains to government, or are they just as free to censor according to their own rules, like small discussion sites? 

Is it just adverse political exposure/noise that forces them to change?

In addition to what @TheVat said, there is also the Equal-Time Rule for radio and television.

Quote

The equal-time rule specifies that American radio and television broadcast stations must provide equivalent access to competing political candidates.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=equal+time+rule&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In addition to what @TheVat said, there is also the Equal-Time Rule for radio and television.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=equal+time+rule&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Interesting, been around a fair old while as well. I can see the need in those days, as there probably wasn't a lot of mass media outlets at the time and monopoly was too powerful. It's only since the internets arrival, that it's not so important, as any deficits in getting other views 'out there' can easily be rectified with new alternative sources. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Are the big social media companies bound by US law to allow freedom of speech, as it pertains to government, or are they just as free to censor according to their own rules, like small discussion sites? 

Is it just adverse political exposure/noise that forces them to change?

AFAIK they are allowed to follow their own policies. They have to follow the law, such as complying with copyright takedown notices, issues involving harassment, etc. They can ban whoever they please. People can “vote with their feet”

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

AFAIK they are allowed to follow their own policies. They have to follow the law, such as complying with copyright takedown notices, issues involving harassment, etc. They can ban whoever they please. People can “vote with their feet”

Cheers.

[disobey]

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

You are mixing "freedom of speech" with "freedom to spread hatred"..

 

BTW, it is "funny" that you showed some politicians. Isn't it the job of the speaker of parliament to silence parliamentarians?

 

  Did you even read those quotes?  Apparently not.

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It doesn't seem like a good faith argument to defend certain human rights while spewing hatred for whole groups of humans at the same time. Does that seem right to anybody?

 

  If I were allowed to speak freely around here, I would have you eating every statement you utter.  Does that seem right to anybody?  (Besides you)  It should.

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

Define essential.  Define everywhere.  

The right of free expression has never extended to the right to harm others or foment harm.  You can make a movie where someone burns down a building, but you can't burn down the moviehouse, no matter how well it might express something.  Nor can you shout FIRE! in said moviehouse if there isn't one.  And no one in your mega meme dump would suggest there be such a freedom to harm others.

 

 

  Define "fuck off."  Then do it.  As in stop wasting my time with your delusional lunacy.  I know that you don't want to know the truth.  Stop pretending that you do.

22 hours ago, Steve81 said:

Freedom of speech reminds me of the infinite monkey theorem. Humans aren’t infinite in number of course, and we’re apes as opposed to monkeys, but the same general idea applies. Some good stuff can come out of it, assuming you can filter out the noise.

 

  Too bad freedom of speech didn't remind you of freedom of speech.  Let a thing be said.  Then, if you have a problem with it, speak it.  If you are right, the matter will be settled.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Rights are between you and the government. Freedom of speech, in terms of the US first amendment, means the government can’t censor you. Forums, in general, are not government entities.

Some more quotes for you

“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” — Carl Sagan

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert L. Park.

And this:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

 

  There is no controversy on the matter.  Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.  Also, are you an American?  If you are, then you live under the umbrella of the first amendment.  It would be hypocritical for you to deny to others that which your government provides for you.  Also, why does the first amendment allow for freedom of speech?  Because denying it is a bad thing.  If it is a bad thing for the government to do, then it is a bad thing for whoever exists as a citizen of that government to do too.

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

No one is stopping you marching up and down Piccadilly, or Madison Ave, with this stuff on a placard and a loudhailer. So your free speech rights are not infringed in any way. 

But there is no reason why a science forum can't have its own rules of membership, which put some constraints on the type of stuff it allows to be shown on its discussion boards.

You are not the first to make the mistake of confusing legal rights to free speech with membership rules on a forum.

 

 

  Then you disagree with the concept of freedom of speech.  I'll keep that in mind.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, disobey said:

Too bad freedom of speech didn't remind you of freedom of speech.  Let a thing be said.  Then, if you have a problem with it, speak it.  If you are right, the matter will be settled.

Too bad it doesn’t work that way. A lot of folks are swayed by emotion, not reason. That’s why we have people that repeat nonsense.

And too often people that appeal to freedom of speech are advocating for freedom from consequences of their speech.

[iNow]

Yawn

[disobey]

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

Speech is not free online. It's a myth, and quite right too. 

It's free, in your own room, on your own, if you keep your voice down. Anywhere else, it's subject to the opinions of others. 

Burst into a Catholic funeral for a baby, shouting that there's no god, and they have every right to shut you up. Make that claim in a discussion forum, and people might debate it with you. 

It's bloody obvious stuff. People don't have to listen to assholes, if they don't want to. Unless they are in prison.

 

  I never said it was free online.  I said it should be.  Either a thing is true or it isn't.  I could tell you MANY true things.  But I'm just not allowed to, here.  The point is, through replies, it would be ME who was listening to assholes.  Not the other way around.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, disobey said:

There is no controversy on the matter.  Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.  Also, are you an American?  If you are, then you live under the umbrella of the first amendment.  It would be hypocritical for you to deny to others that which your government provides for you.  Also, why does the first amendment allow for freedom of speech?  Because denying it is a bad thing.  If it is a bad thing for the government to do, then it is a bad thing for whoever exists as a citizen of that government to do too.

There is no controversy. I support the first amendment: the government should not censor you.

But freedom of speech does not carry any requirement that you have to be provided the megaphone by anyone.

2 minutes ago, disobey said:

I could tell you MANY true things.  But I'm just not allowed to, here.

Because this forum does not belong to you.

[disobey]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Too bad it doesn’t work that way. A lot of folks are swayed by emotion, not reason. That’s why we have people that repeat nonsense.

And too often people that appeal to freedom of speech are advocating for freedom from consequences of their speech.

 

  I fear no consequences from speaking the truth.  I can be banned.  But that doesn't make what I said untrue.  In debate, the only consequence I should face is those who say things that refute what I said.  Though that only lasts as long as it takes for me to reply to their rebuttal.  In my experience, the only way for somebody at any forum to refute what I said is to do so after I've been banned.

[exchemist]

48 minutes ago, disobey said:

 

  Did you even read those quotes?  Apparently not.

 

  If I were allowed to speak freely around here, I would have you eating every statement you utter.  Does that seem right to anybody?  (Besides you)  It should.

 

  Define "fuck off."  Then do it.  As in stop wasting my time with your delusional lunacy.  I know that you don't want to know the truth.  Stop pretending that you do.

 

  Too bad freedom of speech didn't remind you of freedom of speech.  Let a thing be said.  Then, if you have a problem with it, speak it.  If you are right, the matter will be settled.

 

  There is no controversy on the matter.  Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.  Also, are you an American?  If you are, then you live under the umbrella of the first amendment.  It would be hypocritical for you to deny to others that which your government provides for you.  Also, why does the first amendment allow for freedom of speech?  Because denying it is a bad thing.  If it is a bad thing for the government to do, then it is a bad thing for whoever exists as a citizen of that government to do too.

 

  Then you disagree with the concept of freedom of speech.  I'll keep that in mind.

Not at all. But a club is free to make rules of discourse for its members to abide by. That has no impact on anyone’s rights of free speech.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, disobey said:

I could tell you MANY true things. 

Quit keeping us in suspense. Tell us just one. Please.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, disobey said:

Then you disagree with the concept of freedom of speech.  I'll keep that in mind.

So do I. Freedom of speech, like every other freedom guaranteed by a constitution or law, is limited and conditional. That always, everywhere, about anything  nonsense is just that. Every private entity has a right to make rules in their own property, under their own jurisdiction. Smoking may still legal, but schools and hospitals have always had the right to ban it on their grounds. A property owner can post No Hunting signs or No Spray signs on their fence, and it's a binding rule. No publication is obliged to accept every article submitted to is, and every civilized person in the world exercises a degree of self-censorship for the sake of good manners.  

 

 

2 hours ago, disobey said:

I'll keep that in mind.

I wonder what you intend to do with the little list of those who disagree.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Peterkin