Free Speech turns violent oftentimes, no social media | INFJ Forum

Free Speech turns violent oftentimes, no social media

just me

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2009
We seem to have already discussed freedom of speech on social media, so it has been covered. That does not mean we can't talk about it.

When a government allows a protest, knowing it will become violent and affect other parts of the world, I become somewhat dismayed. Protests and words often lead to actions. A government will have a lot of time to think about what they allowed, in many instances.

Burning a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm is quite disrespectful. The use of subliminal actions can cause reactions almost everywhere. What it causes can be limitless, then someone burns a Torah outside an Israeli Embassy.

People in leadership roles the world over usually condemn such actions. Well, what does this do?

All these actions show hatred, not freedom of speech. They also show lack of wisdom and lack of intelligence.
The fact these are holy to a lot of folk and they know better makes me ponder who in the world would commit such crimes, and what exactly is freedom of speech. Does freedom of speech allow me to burn laws written?
May I ask for a permit to speak against a government? What if someone burns the Constitution on White House Grounds: is that freedom of speech? Not to me. What are your thoughts and how do you see actions as part of freedom of speech; actions that will cause animosity toward permits? Governments?
The words inside holy books cannot be burnt out of being. The spirit of the words live on.
  • Like
Reactions: John K
I think it quite simple. Speech is the spoken word, or the written word, or artistic expression. Actions which are otherwise are not speech. Burning is burning, and is not speech. Actions chosen are thus, in response or otherwise, and are not speech. Of course, I am not a lawyer.

So long as it is legal, burn what you like. Just know that some people become upset by such symbolism.

I donʼt think speech is violent, but some of the very best speech feels as if it is. Words to give wings to dreams, to stir the passions such that the blood rushes like a river, hot as coals.

The singular beauty of freedom of speech is that it becomes a spotlight which reveals those things we value, and those things we lie about, and those things we are ashamed of. It also serves to test the ideal of equity versus our lived experiences of hierarchy and inequity.

History proves the world is worse off without it and the lack of freedom of speech is a feature of dictatorships the world over.
Sorry, I don't want to come in here and be contentious, but I feel this is something that has to be discussed. I will spoiler tag my response because it contain sensitive topics.

Freedom of speech, to me, is the freedom to criticize. I think if we look at the bigger picture, and I know this is a quite contentious topic, we live in a time where criticizing certain things can lead to death. In democratic countries.

There was a teacher in France that was beheaded for simply saying that you have the right to criticize islam. He didn't criticize it. He had simply stated that it was in a persons right to do so.

We live in a time where there are groups that defy and challenge the ruling powers, and that is a real thing. There are countless of incidents showing this, in Sweden, and throughout Europe. I don't want to be an alarmist, but I think these protests, while they are disrespectful towards believing muslims, is highlighting a much larger issue. No one is physically harmed by a book being burned, but we now have a new demographic that we didn't have before, that assert their own rules, and will go to lengths of killing over it.

The burning of books show us what real problem we have in front of us.
Freedom of speech is like tolerance in an important respect - how far can intolerance be tolerated, particularly when some kinds of intolerance are directed at the social destruction of tolerant attitudes. So with freedom of speech, which can be used to promote the idea of destroying such freedom. It isn't as simple as relying on rational behaviour to temper destructive ideas either, because most of us are swayed as much (if not more) by emotion than we are by rational persuasion. That's why advertising companies are so successful.

Like democracy, freedom of speech is probably more of a privilege than a genuine right, and can only be approximated in the most civilised and wealthy societies. There can never be complete freedom of speech, as can be see in wartime when expressions of support for the enemy are outlawed, or where, even in peacetime, inciting to violence is banned in many developed countries.

I'm not making value judgements here, but just describing what I observe. I'm not at all sure, though, whether a stable society can really be based on complete freedom of speech, and complete tolerance of all viewpoints and attitudes. That's because such a society would tolerate the promotion of attitudes and forces that would ultimately destroy it and replace it with something less tolerant.
Hitler burned books by the thousands. We now have groups pestering the governments for special treatment. They are trying to change history. Why?

It would seem by now we all should know the past. Allowing these groups to change the names of things everywhere is more of a sullen reminder of how people follow people. This is a large part of what it is coming down to, along with spiritual beliefs. We have portraits and pictures in the south that were removed from government locations because they bother people. Where are they now? Were they burnt? Tossed in a closet? Race is so predictable to cause problems, because of who is pouring the hot coals on the rivers. The others are growing tired of it. That was a long time ago, and it did not start in the south of the USA. It has been used thousands of years. Some slaves were bought because of their expertise growing rice elsewhere. They were pros at it. There were places they lived burned to the ground to get them to leave their homes, just because the government decided to. I have walked in these grounds, where small sections of oyster cement stand near old brick chimneys and fireplaces. I would have wanted to stay, too. There was no freedom of choice. There was no freedom of choice for the native Americans.

There have most likely been Presidents and world leaders assassinated because they stood for what they believed to be right, or because they were tyrants and abused their people and others. Yes, it is a good thing to be able to take a stand and say how one feels. In English, I was taught to speak publicly. Properly, too. And yes, we all make mistakes sometimes. Freedom of speech has become more than freedom of speech: it has become words and actions to try and get people to revolt against something.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: John K
Burning a flag or a holy book is, or should be, out of bounds when given the right to speak freely.

Freedom of speech full of malice is talking then taking a swing at people. I thought that to be a comedian's job. It brings me sorrow.

Burning anything you want is not acceptable to me. Christians burned witches. I wonder how many were infj?

Some have thought to burn cities. Remember 9-11? I do. Even burning your rubber duckie is bad for the environment.


Do they give freedom of speech to someone who wants to just speak to their government?
  • Like
Reactions: John K
I wonder if freedom of speech gets mixed up with freedom from consequences of what is said. I mean - if you call your boss out for being an utter idiot, then there will be consequences. They may be good or they may be bad, but freedom doesn't mean there won't be an outcome, even if the freedom is real.
I wonder if freedom of speech gets mixed up with freedom from consequences of what is said. I mean - if you call your boss out for being an utter idiot, then there will be consequences. They may be good or they may be bad, but freedom doesn't mean there won't be an outcome, even if the freedom is real.
In fact there is a stage further - if there aren't consequences, then freedom of speech is a waste of time, and it's just peeing in the wind.
Last edited:
In fact there is a stage further - if there aren't consequences, then freedom of speech is a wast of time, and it's just peeing in the wind.

Yeah, people don't understand that freedom of speech only works because/when there is a healthy framework for it to occur.
To a lot of people, freedom of speech means they get to say whatever they want without repercussion.
Freedom divorced from responsibility is a vacuous, prostituted liberty, veneer as virtue, and an ideal crafted from rot.

In Australia we don't have a bill of rights. Anything which disturbs the common peace is generally frowned upon, and police will ask people to move on. While this may seem to curtail free speech, it seems to promote courteous speech.

YouTube give an impression (albeit a skewed impression) that freedom of speech in America get confused with the freedom to annoy, upset, interrupt, and interfere with people trying to go about their lives in public.

The legal restrictions here in Australia don't limit free speech, in the sense that if you have something you want to share with other people, you can share it. But you can't force it down the throat of someone who isn't interested. It's almost a freedom from others' speech.
it seems to promote courteous speech

That is wonderful. If someone doesn't like what one is saying in free speech, it would be much better if the other person go away or do not disturb. Screaming and much worse can sneak in under the door, and eventually start breaking windows. Free
speech can be used as a tool for distractions, so the intent of something like this is to get a crowd screaming at each other and worse. Law enforcement may be called in, rock throwing, assault, burning tires, looting...could go on and on.

The application for a permit here in the USA must ask what the speech is about. If it is mostly going to be about politics,
maybe there should be an outline to try and de-escalate placed for the speakers' needs. It does not give the crowd a permit for verbal assault.

Giving a permit to allow talking badly against Islam in front of a mosque, just seems to be asking and allowing the wrong place at the wrong time. Most people cannot have an actual debate, as witnessed in a lot of political debates.

Do not get me wrong: I love the fact we have freedom of speech. I just think and feel we should remember along the lines of what a permitted speech really is. We should always remember the rights of others when speaking as such. We should try to be as amiable as possible. If your words have power and truth, they will be heard best without riots. Remember, riots are really not good news, and your content and meanings may be lost in the riot.

copied "
There is a hush as the players go through an intricate routine of selecting two balls that they somehow judge to be different from the others, spend what seems like a long time bouncing the ball and then finally square up for the critical serve. Just as they are about to toss up the ball, some agitated supporter yells out “Come on!” and the moment is shattered. Concentration broken, the poor player has to start all over again. I have no doubt that the offending fans wish their favored player well and are trying to be helpful. But they ought to realize that sometimes they can be most helpful by staying silent. copied
Last edited: