Poll: What is Your Position on Freedom of Speech?

What's your position on freedom of speech?

  • Freedom of speech is bad and some topics should be forbidden altogether.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31
Freedom of speech is nice and all, but I don't feel free to say what I want with a government that assasinates, issues gag orders in secret courts, tourtures, cause war, degrade our rights, and generally destroying life.
 
Freedom of speech is nice and all, but I don't feel free to say what I want with a government that assasinates, issues gag orders in secret courts, tourtures, cause war, degrade our rights, and generally destroying life.

This is literally masochism. All of the things you describe would just get worse if we let the most basic human right be constantly trodden upon.
 
According to the poll, it looks like this may be the case. United States of BDSM and Capitulation.

Since this is a global community, I would hazard a guess at world of BDSM and Capitulation.

... that's a lot of kink. :m131:

Given the importance of freedom of speech, what are some ideas you have to help proliferate the acceptance of free speech worldwide? There will always be those who oppose progress, but, more importantly, what can be done to promote it?

Lastly, what does freedom of speech mean to you? I know that might sound like a silly question, but often in such matters one finds that people are on different pages in regards to how they define certain subjects. This seems like a worthwhile subject to discuss. : )
 
Since this is a global community, I would hazard a guess at world of BDSM and Capitulation.

... that's a lot of kink. :m131:

Given the importance of freedom of speech, what are some ideas you have to help proliferate the acceptance of free speech worldwide? There will always be those who oppose progress, but, more importantly, what can be done to promote it?

Lastly, what does freedom of speech mean to you? I know that might sound like a silly question, but often in such matters one finds that people are on different pages in regards to how they define certain subjects. This seems like a worthwhile subject to discuss. : )

Freedom of speech means my life to me. If free expression was no right available to me, I would not be able to pursue the life I wish to. More important than my life, however, is the fundamental and automatically certified progression that free speech provides in ANY society that is deemed compatible with it. It is obvious that most members here don't care all that much about free speech as they have proved in several threads including this one.

Honestly...... If you people spent just one moment to stop floating around in your utopian fantasies and your extensive mid-life crises and nihilism and grounded yourself for just one second, you will see how freedom of speech is CONSTANTLY under threat. It is constantly being attacked by all levels of Western academia; the Cultural Marxists that wish to censor all kinds of vague categories of speech. Some of them even wish to criminalize free-thought (Thought-crime) on a religious level by calling themselves 'Islamic Community Spokesman' or 'Catholic solidarity movement'. These people timidly request that people stop 'offending' religious groups, give them special treatment ABOVE the law (Because 'God' is above everything according to their dogma) and they get applauded for it. And would you like to know who backs these academics? The extremist groups. They are currently providing the violent threats necessary to keep Western media outlets scared to such an extent that they were unwilling to publish the Danish Cartoons in 2005, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in 2015. Even after 12 of their gunmen were shot in their own offices, the media STILL refused to solidify their position with liberalism and show the fucking cartoons. Those people died in vain. Ed Miliband was nearly elected as Prime Minister of my country last year. If elected, he would have outlawed 'Islamophobia'. Do you know how many innocent people would have been arrested and sent to a prison cell just for speaking their mind based on that law alone? Because people all across the continent are being threatened by this word and are proving themselves too afraid to even criticise Islamic and other religious doctrine. If we bar people from doing such a thing (and I don't care how much you sugar-coat it), we will be going back to a time where religion gets the final say and is never criticised. Societies have to improve by criticising other and themselves. Freedom of speech allows progression to happen naturally. The 14 people that voted against free expression should be ashamed of themselves.

This is just one example I can give to illustrate why this fundamental right is so important to me. It gives everyone the right to criticize, condemn, slander, refute. All of the people giving bullshit examples like "What if a man said something awful things to a cop". Just tell me what you really think. There are only two motions to vote on this thread: You are either for 100% free expression, or you are for regulating it. Go and cater to your own self-loathing version of the 1st Amendment, but don't bloody well do it in my name. I'm all for free expression and I won't let some piffle excuse let a bunch of masochistic cultural sadists ruin this right for all of us.

What can be done to promote it? Read all of the things I've just said in this thread. If that doesn't help promote it, then I suggest you watch this video:

[video=youtube;4Z2uzEM0ugY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY[/video]

If that didn't help promote freedom of speech, I honestly think those unsatisfied people should sign off of this thread and go play some ping pong. Or as Hitchens said: "Kiss my ass".
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]

Glad to know you openly condone child pornography. That is a form of unprotected speech in America today.

Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

•Obscenity
•Fighting words
•Defamation (includes libel, slander)
•Child pornography
•Perjury
•Blackmail
•Incitement to imminent lawless action
•True threats
•Solicitations to commit crimes

Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-speech
 
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]

Glad to know you openly condone child pornography. That is a form of unprotected speech in America today.



http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-speech

This is not speech. These are reprehensible crimes. Why are you trying to suggest I am condoning child pornography? You just quoted the 1st Amendment which is precisely what I am trying to defend.

Nice try, but you really need to do better than that. You're not very good at discussing things like an adult, are you? You're only good at cheap jibes. "Oh look, he supports ALL free speech! I bet he'd love to protect the rights of child pornographers!" Pathetic.
 
This is not speech. These are reprehensible crimes. Why are you trying to suggest I am condoning child pornography? You just quoted the 1st Amendment which is precisely what I am trying to defend.

Nice try, but you really need to do better than that.

It is classified as a speech act! It is a form of expression. It is a crime BECAUSE we do not allow completely and fully unregulated free speech.
 
It is classified as a speech act! It is a form of expression. It is a crime BECAUSE we do not allow completely and fully unregulated free speech.

Your original points indicates that you classify child pornography as somebody exercising their right to speak in a public discourse. You've just deliberately took the entire thread out of context just to suggest that I condone awful things.

Did you even watch the video I linked?
 
Your original points indicates that you classify child pornography as somebody exercising their right to speak in a public discourse. You've just deliberately took the entire thread out of context just to suggest that I condone awful things.

Did you even watch the video I linked?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

Read this carefully:

I am not the one who is classifying it as a speech act. It is already classified as a speech act under the law. Pornography is protected speech in America with the notable exception of child pornography. That is a clear limitation that I'm trying to get you to acknowledge.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was a United States federal law to restrict child pornography on the internet, including virtual child pornography.

Before 1996, Congress defined child pornography with reference to the Ferber standard. In New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), the Supreme Court held that the government could restrict the distribution of child pornography to protect children from the child sexual abuse harm inherent in making it. In Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), the Ferber proscription was extended by the Court to the mere possession of child pornography.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act added two categories of speech to the definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In Ashcroft case, the Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means."

The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

The Supreme Court struck down CPPA in 2002 in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as a violation of the First Amendment for being too broad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996
 
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

Read this carefully:

I am not the one who is classifying it as a speech act. It is already classified as a speech act under the law. Pornography is protected speech in America with the notable exception of child pornography. That is a clear limitation that I'm trying to get you to acknowledge.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996

You misunderstand. I did acknowledge everything you said. I think you need to re-read what I posted.

I understand English perfectly well.
 
You misunderstand. I did acknowledge everything you said. I think you need to re-read what I posted.

I understand English perfectly well.

What exactly should I re-read? It seems you do not even have a valid definition for what constitutes speech, a speech act, or expression.
 
What exactly should I re-read? It seems you do not even have a valid definition for what constitutes speech, a speech act, or expression.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's a good place to start. I do not class child porn as speech due to its relationship with paedophilia; one of the worst crimes imaginable. I classify freedom of speech as the right for anyone to stand in a public sphere and express themselves (via SPEECH, speaking with their voice or letters on a forum like this) freely without any law prohibiting them from saying particular things. They can condone whatever they wish, as long as they do not overly threaten a person with violence. Violent threat is not speech, it is a violation of free speech itself.
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's a good place to start. I do not class child porn as speech due to its relationship with paedophilia; one of the worst crimes imaginable. I classify freedom of speech as the right for anyone to stand in a public sphere and express themselves (via SPEECH, speaking with their voice or letters on a forum like this) freely without any law prohibiting them from saying particular things. They can condone whatever they wish, as long as they do not overly threaten a person with violence. Violent threat is not speech, it is a violation of free speech itself.

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not. Governmental and other compulsory organizations often have policies restricting the freedom of speech for political reasons, for example, speech codes at state schools.

The term "offense principle" is also used to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

You haven't even thought about any of the implications about the things you've said before, have you? What about mediums such as paintings, drawings, music, film, television, the internet, etc.? Speech is not simply verbal. If you're trying to limit it in such a way, you have to redefine and reassess a massive amount of legal precedent. Not to mention that you are simply redefining speech to fit your argument and reclassifying 'unprotected speech' as 'non-speech' without addressing how that distinction or standard will be measured or assessed by a court of law.

This is pure naiveté.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

You haven't even thought about any of the implications about the things you've said before, have you? What about mediums such as paintings, drawings, music, film, television, the internet, etc.? Speech is not simply verbal. If you're trying to limit it in such a way, you have to redefine and reassess a massive amount of legal precedent. Not to mention that you are simply redefining speech to fit your argument and reclassifying 'unprotected speech' as 'non-speech' without addressing how that distinction or standard will be measured or assessed by a court of law.

This is pure naiveté.

I am naive because I didn't mention other mediums? Well alrighty then...

My argument was already valid. If you missed it, I also mentioned text and forum-related speech, which does include the mediums you discussed. I accepted the distinction that child pornography was given, and I disagree with it. That doesn't make me naive. I disagree with some UK laws on 'hate speech' too. Again, doesn't make me naive. It simply means I subscribe to a slightly alternative set of values which encompasses the 1st Amendment as well as the points I raised in previous posts on this thread. I personally think all of the mediums you discussed should not be regulated unless copyright infringements are made, which is a completely different ballgame to free speech. You appear to want to make out that the law is complicated and therefore regulation is almost inevitable. Well, considering you think I am too naive to discuss such a topic, why don't you just agree to disagree with me and end this façade? As it appears that you will literally go on and on in an endless circle until the thread becomes almost dead to the tumble-weed. I've said all I needed to say on free expression. I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary to sit my argument. My argument is as clear as spring water.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

You haven't even thought about any of the implications about the things you've said before, have you? What about mediums such as paintings, drawings, music, film, television, the internet, etc.? Speech is not simply verbal. If you're trying to limit it in such a way, you have to redefine and reassess a massive amount of legal precedent. Not to mention that you are simply redefining speech to fit your argument and reclassifying 'unprotected speech' as 'non-speech' without addressing how that distinction or standard will be measured or assessed by a court of law.

This is pure naiveté.

I am naive because I didn't mention other mediums? Well play me the world's smallest violin, I'm certainly not inclined to indulge in your semantics.

My argument was already valid. If you missed it, I also mentioned text and forum-related speech, which does include the mediums you discussed. I accepted the distinction that child pornography was given, and I disagree with it. That doesn't make me naive. I disagree with some UK laws on 'hate speech' too. Again, doesn't make me naive. It simply means I subscribe to a slightly alternative set of values which encompasses the 1st Amendment as well as the points I raised in previous posts on this thread. I personally think all of the mediums you discussed should not be regulated unless copyright infringements are made, which is a completely different ballgame to free speech. You appear to want to make out that the law is complicated and therefore regulation is almost inevitable. Well, considering you think I am too naive to discuss such a topic, why don't you just agree to disagree with me and end this façade? As it appears that you will literally go on and on in an endless circle until the thread becomes almost dead to the tumble-weed. I've said all I needed to say on free expression. I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary to sit my argument. My argument is as clear as spring water. Whereas I am unsure of what your argument is.
 
I'm certainly not inclined to indulge in your semantics.

It simply means I subscribe to a slightly alternative set of values which encompasses the 1st Amendment as well as the points I raised in previous posts on this thread.

So, it's my fault you're making a semantic argument?

Apparently, you're still okay with the distribution of child pornography after the fact. I guess you have all sorts of semantic distinctions we're all not fully aware of despite reprimanding the forum for not following them?

I wasn't proposing an argument. I have, so far, only commented on your argument.
 
So, it's my fault you're making a semantic argument?

Apparently, you're still okay with the distribution of child pornography after the fact. I guess you have all sorts of semantic distinctions we're all not fully aware of despite reprimanding the forum for not following them?

I wasn't proposing an argument. I have, so far, only commented on your argument.
You are discussing freedom of speech in terms of established laws/rights and deducing its scope and limitations from those laws. A deontological approach to the subject is certainly legitimate, but ultimately becomes a legal discussion. [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] seems to me, to be discussing the subject of freedom of speech inductively, that is in terms of actual speech and the various restrictions imposed upon it. When is speech not speech? When you're dealing with complex prescriptive legal documents.
 
There are obviously huge grey areas when it comes to defining what freedom of speech actually encompasses and it certainly has evolved over time. I agree more with definitions that originated during the Enlightenment, where the purpose of free speech is not self-expression in itself, but a right created by the people to ensure that governing bodies are representative of the people being governed. You cannot have a true republic or a democracy without the right to dissent. Freedom of speech is a right to ensure that we have government that works for people of the natural world and is based on reason and not one based on revealed religion and superstitions. The use of reason exposed the frauds that claimed that their God ordained them to rule their subjects.

It was only during the Romantic era, which rejected Enlightenment values, where self expression took precedence over Reason. This eventually developed into the post modernist contamination of freedom of speech, where it is somehow someone's right to enjoy child pornography under the banner of "self-expression". Such a view should be openly condemned and not protected by the People. While it is true that there is a minority of human beings that are hardwired to be attracted to minors, there is no reason to conclude that it is a legitimate form of self-expression(which is a subcategory of free speech) that needs protection under the law. It is the children that need protection from these predators and not the predators from the government.
 
Back
Top