news Free Speech

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. It only exists when it comes to the government, not on private platforms.

If you want to use that freedom to act like an idiot, racist, @sshole, etc. then you can, but expect to feel some consequences. Maybe not from the government, but from private citizens, companies, groups, organizations, etc.

Brad

Advocating for free speech isn't an endorsement of bad ideas. Nothing unusual about talking to someone and disagreeing.

In another thread about freedom of speech in the words actually in a domain name, another member posted a link to an excellent book on Freedom of Speech which I bought, and I recommend it too. Freedom of speech is an ongoing challenge we all have to wrestle with.



https://www.namepros.com/threads/blatantly-racist-domains.1020858/page-3#post-6231415

You can not have true democracy without Freedom of Speech and you can not have Freedom of Speech without true democracy.......As Trump signs a Free Speech Executive Order.

bmugford said:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. It only exists when it comes to the government, not on private platforms.

If you want to use that freedom to act like an idiot, racist, @sshole, etc. then you can, but expect to feel some consequences. Maybe not from the government, but from private citizens, companies, groups, organizations, etc.

Brad

Click to expand...

Entirely true. Can you tie this back to my original post somehow?

Is there not a circle of acceptable things, a border grey area, and unacceptable things beyond
The circle of acceptable things starts shrinking "just because" someone tries their best to define the limits and enforce them in their community?

No more rules guys
Rules are a slippery slope

I'm probably just not understanding how this could play out

@NameLlama, thank you for staying on topic. And, valid point. You suggest that at the core of the issue stands the notion of having rules vs not having rules. I agree that rules are important. I should clarify that in this thread, I am referring specifically to how internet companies domiciled in the US should consider how their rules align with the laws of the US, where one of our founding tenets is freedom of speech. This is one of the foundational laws of the land and must be upheld in order to maintain legal and social cohesion, less the foundation crumbles and all is lost.

In your community, you have agency. You can make your own choices as to who to endorse, etc. However, it is not within any community's rights to impose their beliefs on another community. A "hateful" community may not impose their beliefs on a "loving" community, and vice versa. Attempting to do so is essentially a precursor to war. However, change in attitudes and beliefs can come as one side persuades another through open dialogue. Maybe the "hateful" community will be the persuasive side. I would argue that this is not likely if the hateful ideas are indeed reprehensible and without merit. In my original post, even a 7 on the 10 scale was eventually deemed "hateful". I'll bet we all have held at least one 7 out of 10 idea at one point in time. And again, keep in mind that this 10 scale is arbitrary, so we definitely have.

You want to make the world better for yourself and your community. And you, an upstanding member of your community, will have due influence to fend off such outside influences of negativity through involvement with your community and proper education of your offspring. And fend off bad ideas you may. In fact, I'm confident that you will. But dissolve them completely you will not, ever. Bad ideas will always exist. You cannot run from them. You are best served to keep them close enough to see, and confront them when needed. Who knows, perhaps if those bad ideas are close enough they will see how well you are thriving and want to change their ways. But again, how does real change happen? Organically, through honest and open dialogue, and through first-hand experience. Creating resentment among opposing sides by taking away their voice is not a way to encourage positive change. I think the focus should be fending off of bad ideas through discourse and dialog. Truth will always prosper.

At the core of the matter is indeed rules vs no rules. The current rule is that everyone gets a voice, and this is the notion I am endorsing. As @bmugford correctly stated above, there are consequences to every action. But at all times, free speech must be upheld. Everyone gets a voice. I want to hear what's out there and not be hit with any surprises. Will I support the merits of every idea just because it exists? Of course not. But I will support its right to exist, and if it is a bad idea, it will meet its fate through natural means. Giving any individual or entity the authority to choose what that fate is is not the proper solution and creates a precedent that can only lead to chaos. Protect your community by all means. But don't encroach upon others' rights.

Thank you for your reflective posts @Bernard Wright, expressed in an eloquent and clear fashion. I am still thinking through some of it, but I tend to agree in general and also with @bmugford that consequences are tied in with free speech in a critical way.

I would say that I personally feel that there need to be limits on free speech, not so much expressed by community norms (like the numbers/views) but for me the absolutely critical point is consequences and harm for other persons. That is, if my rights to free speech interfere with your rights to a safe environment, then your rights should be stronger. That is why I do not agree with making manifesto's from extreme radicals available as that might lead to copy cat or other encouragement to others, possibly seeking notoriety. Similarly, the laws against hate speech are necessary and appropriate.

I think society should allow as much freedom of speech as does not potentially harm others. Some of the court imposed limits, I think, have followed this principle. Free speech may be speech another person dislikes, but it should not be speech that causes a riskier environment for the other person.

Canadian courts have grappled with similar conflicts in health care, for example. While adults have rights to make even poor choices, and certainly choices not supported by evidence, with respect to their own health, Canadian courts have clearly and repeatedly held that does not apply to medical care of children. Parents who had mistrust of 'conventional' medicine and withheld care or substituted 'treatments' with no basis in evidence. have been found guilty of not providing the necessities of life when their children died, and in other courses children have been taken from their care.

On the one hand a person might feel that they have the right to espouse any medical view, but if those views encourage and influence others to make life-threatening decisions then I would argue the person does not have that right. It is encouraging that Facebook at least say they plan to regulate untrue information more effectively, but it is not easy and we will see.

Lots to think about.

Bob

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I am not well versed in Canadian politics, but I have seen some bills in Ontario within the past couple of years that were rather troubling IMO. A nation state's legal authority to decide in a child's medical case does seem a complicated matter.

Regarding freedom of speech, I believe the issue is a bit more simple. I believe the internet should be a platform whereupon any speech that could legally be expressed in the public square should be made equally accessible, by both the speaker and the listener. No calls to violence, or threats, etc. just as in other forms of public life. But this also means not agreeing with a particular point of view, or not liking something or someone, is not grounds for incarceration, be it physical or virtual.

Bob Hawkes said:

I think society should allow as much freedom of speech as does not potentially harm others.

Click to expand...

"Potentially" and 'Harm" add some complexity to a situation that I think is not so complex. Emotional harm? Physical harm? I think as in physical life, crimes tied directly to something one has called for should be met with the appropriate legal response. Potentiality is too arbitrary to create overarching principles upon. I would leave the potentiality out and say:

I think society should allow as much freedom of speech as does not include verifiable threats or provocations of physical harm.

should a murderer have a forum in a public space
where you more or less stumble
accidentally over the content of his strange mind
you deliberately would have never chosen to hear?

no why should he?

he is a criminal
has murdered people
he had no connection with before

he should not have the means of promoting his deeds to the world
no way


freedom of speech?
he has lost his right to speak after the murder

free speech to me means:
he can talk about it
when he hasn't done anything
( unless he encourages people to act accordingly
that he can't )

but afterwards?
he has put himself
outside the society
and therefore can't claim rights for himself
he definitely had before


how about the rights of the victims
not to be watched by strangers in such a situation?

how about the privacy of those who didn't want to die?
and more so: didn't want to die in a TV show????

frank-germany said:

freedom of speech?
he has lost his right to speak after the murder

Click to expand...

Not in the US. I don't know Germany's laws on the matter.
You inspired me to look into it. There are indeed published books authored by murderers.

https://the-line-up.com/books-written-by-serial-killers

frank-germany said:

how about the rights of the victims
not to be watched by strangers in such a situation?

Click to expand...

There is no such legal right in the US.

frank-germany said:

how about the privacy of those who didn't want to die?
and more so: didn't want to die in a TV show????

Click to expand...

There are unfortunate tragedies every day. I don't watch them, but I know there are plenty of videos of such tragedies online for those who wish to watch them. Such videos are a negative element that I don't introduce into my world, nor do I encourage them into the worlds of my loved ones. But they are reality. Life can be tragic. We have no right to privacy in the public square. We can be video recorded against our will, whether we are eating ice cream or falling victim to a crime.

I would defend the right of anything you have proposed to remain free under freedom of speech laws.

Bernard Wright said:

Not in the US. I don't know Germany's laws on the matter.
You inspired me to look into it. There are indeed published books authored by murderers.

Click to expand...

I didn't talk about laws

I told you my opinion
( free speech )

Thank you for your opinion. With respect to how hit relates to my initial post, I will presume that you would consider such elements a "10" and an easy target for dismissal from the public. My contention is that by starting with a 10, the slippery slope also begins. Therefore, all or nothing and we lock our own doors at night, but we do not lock our neighbors inside their homes from the outside, even if they are scary.

Freedom of Speech RIP. It was dying slowly until about 2-3 years ago, then it started speeding up it's death spiral. It's really very simple to see where it's coming from.

Who controls the MSM? At least 90% or more is left leaning and biased against conservative thinking. Why is it biased? Because at least 85% or more of those employed by the MSM are Liberals.

The big boys like Google, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, to name a few, are also staffed by mostly leftist employees that have been clipping the wings of, mostly conservatives, who use their platforms to put across their point of view.

These conservatives, have been de-platformed, banned, shadow banned, de-monetized, because these Almighty Big Boys, who believe that only they know the TRUTH, don't want these people's messages, thoughts, news or facts to become known.

This is pure CENSORSHIP... They have become the De Facto Thought Police of our times. Who the hell decides what is right and what is wrong? Right now, the Liberals have decided, by themselves that only they are the owners of the Truth!

And then there is Hollywood... that snake pit of ultra left scumbags who exert such a strong influence on Americans. They are almost 100% lefties, they can spew out the most vile crap ever heard and they will get applauded by brainwashed audiences.

How about what's happening at Schools and Universities... why are the kids being brainwashed to think just one way? Don't they teach them to think for themselves anymore?... the poor little snowflakes, in constant need of a Safe space... LOL



If things carry on the way they are going, only one group of people will have Free Speech in the near future... The LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE LEFT.

Just imagine a world like that... everyone agreeing with everyone else and everyone kissing each others asses.... HOW BORING...

It’s more than boring. It’s dangerous. I find it ironic that one of the questions posed in a separate thread was weather a particular registrar under fire would knowingly publish sites related to various interest groups, such as LGBT and the like. It was clearly an attempt to qualify that registrar’s tolerance for alternative viewpoints. And indeed this registrar seemed to have met the standard, based on the given response.

Not all of these alternative viewpoints would have had a platform today, had it not been for the free speech laws that allowed their opinions and needs to be heard. In the 1950s some would have been shut down without question.

Let us reflect on the great strides society has made as a result of freedom of speech. May this freedom be preserved and truth prevail.

bmugford said:

Freedom of speech ... only exists when it comes to the government, not on private platforms.

Click to expand...

I've heard a lot of people say this. But it's just not true.

Freedoms and rights exist first of all as ideas and values. Only after they are articulated and people share them can they be enshrined in law and protected. And their protection depends on much more than just lawyers and courts. We rely on custom 99% of the time. Only in rare cases do the courts determine what we allow in our daily lives.

Some countries have freedom of speech encoded in the law. Some never have. Does that mean freedom of speech has no meaning in those countries? Did it have no meaning at all in the USA before the Bill of Rights was written up? In that case, how did people interpret the gibberish about freedoms before the verbiage was ratified as law? After all, this freedom didn't exist!

No, no, no. Freedom of speech is too important to leave it up to governments to define whether or not it exists. We, the people, decide what rights exist. And then we demand that governments recognize those rights officially.

Freedom of speech is a very modern idea. And it has been hard won. So many people suffered from the lack of this liberty that it is painful to watch how easily it slips away or is actively eroded by the very groups who are its historical beneficiaries.

John Locke, a philosopher writing in the late 1600s, is one of the originators of this concept of free speech. He advocated for it as a rationally useful social value. But it was not, as yet, law in Britain or anywhere else. It was theoretical.

Yet Locke didn't conceive of freedom of speech as an absolute freedom. (I hear some of you saying, "Right. It shouldn't be.") For Locke, it seemed self-evident that some kinds of speech were dangerous, socially subversive, and therefore deserved to be restricted. This is the same viewpoint espoused lately by progressives who want to put limits on "hate speech". However, the categories of speech that Locke and all his coevals agreed should be banned were these:

(1) Atheists
(2) Roman Catholics

Dangerous, perverse groups, to be sure!

We owe the very concept of free speech to philosophers, acting as individuals to promulgate tolerance and critical thinking. Government-backed freedoms are a consequence of social consensus, which itself is a consensus of radical thinkers who were often persecuted by their contemporaries for defying the consensus of their own society.

Spinoza, another philospher writing in the mid 1600s, is equally important. He wrote:

"The most tyrannical governments are those which make crimes of opinions, for everyone has an inalienable right over his thoughts"

I don't mind jabbing a thumb in the eye of the antisemites who hang out in forums by emphasizing that Spinoza was a jew – one of many without whom the achievements of the modern world would be unthinkable.

It look centuries to build consensus for the modern idea of freedom of speech that allows even catholics and atheists to challenge a received dogma. 200 years later, John Stuart Mill, writing in the mid 1800s formulated that idea:

"Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme,' not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

Clearly, Mill's argument – which was once shared by educated liberals in the USA – has been forgotten. We are retrogressing as a society.

Throughout much of history, censorship has focused on the political left or the progressives. During the era of McCarthyism, in the USA, socialists and artists were persecuted. Throughout much of history, homosexuals could not speak openly. Likewise, Bertrand Russell, who was outspoken as an atheist and in matters of marriage and sexual morality, was boycotted and prohibited from teaching a course on mathematical logic in the USA.

These days, censorship in the USA mainly applies to the right wing, since "progressive" social ideas are in the ascendancy. The pendulum has swung the other way. So now the progressives (who needed freedom of speech in the past for their own survival) are actively trying to silence the extreme right. As a progressive myself, I can understand the motivation. After all, some viewpoints on the extreme right strike me as repugnant: Racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. But the principle that defends the right to express ideas themselves is being weakened, if not destroyed. When the pendulum swings again, it may be the progressives who find themselves once again censored and persecuted.

Freedom of speech cannot be reduced to some clause in a constitution. Either it is a shared value that we defend in our daily lives, or else we will rip it out of constitutions or never write it into those documents in the first place.

In the 21st century, communication mainly occurs online. And that implies some platform – whether email or social media or a blog or a forum or a news site. Always that involves a domain name. If it is possible to force domain registrars – through a negative public pressure campaign – to banish domain names that are publishing legal but (to some) objectionable content, then freedom of speech is in jeopardy. And if all registrars agree not to accept a controversial website, which may be offensive to the majority but which is not doing anything illegal, then freedom of speech online becomes absolutely impossible.

No government protects a domain name's right to exist. Society has not articulated any principle here or built any consensus yet. In this unexplored territory, freedom of speech has yet to be defined fully. And it is in serious peril.

Domain registrars do not have any obligation to protect freedom of speech. But if no registrars do, then there will be no freedom of speech. This freedom is inextricable from the domain name industry. And registrars are on the front lines of defining what rights, if any, people in a digital age have to express their views.

bmugford said:

Freedom of speech ... only exists when it comes to the government, not on private platforms.

Click to expand...

No. Freedom of speech exists first as an idea being articulated and defended by a few people. Then it becomes a shared community value. Eventually, if we are lucky, citizens encode the freedom they already value as a law recognized by their government. But before that can happen, freedom of speech MUST exist as a value and a policy on private platforms.

Slanted said:

No. Freedom of speech exists first as an idea being articulated and defended by a few people. Then it becomes a shared community value. Eventually, if we are lucky, citizens encode the freedom they already value as a law recognized by their government. But before that can happen, freedom of speech MUST exist as a value and a policy on private platforms.

Click to expand...

A lot of your points are based on philosophy.

Let's take the United States -

The First Amendment text reads: “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.”

Freedom of speech is not protected when it comes to private platforms, companies, groups, organizations, etc.

You can say what you want, but if your employer is offended they can fire you.
Social media platforms have the right to ban you for violating their TOS.
Epik has the right to ban you for violating their TOS.
Private organizations and groups can kick you out for your behavior.

If that is acceptable or not is another discussion, but that is the reality.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
I stand by my comments.

Brad

I think most of us support freedom of speech, but there are grey zones in which things becomes more complexed. A few examples:

- Should handbooks for terrorists be allowed? Such as “The Anarchist Cookbook”, or much worse and updated ones?

- Should ISIS be allowed to run their own website and spread their propaganda?

- Should holocaust denial be legal in books or online? It’s currently not legal in many European countries.

- Should you be allowed to smear companies and individuals online and portray those as criminals (without evidence) etc?

All of the points above may be regulated by various laws and jurisdictions, but I just want to point out that this is a complex issue.

@bmugford,

Obviously there is no legal requirement to protect freedom of speech except what is written in the law. But that's a tautology. Indeed, the law you quoted (which is a local feature of the USA) only places a limit on other laws that might be enacted, which might limit freedom of speech. As you say, it isn't a legal requirement for citizens to respect freedom of speech in their own private lives.

This only underscores my point: Freedom of speech is primarily a value or standard or custom or principle that exists outside of and prior to any laws. It is therefore up to the platforms and communities themselves to honor that freedom or else to discriminate and censor the speech of their members.

bmugford said:

Freedom of speech is not protected when it comes to private platforms, companies, groups, organizations, etc.

Click to expand...

Sure it is:

• When a blogger allows comments that disagree with or criticize the writer ... That blog is protecting free speech.
• When a forum allows the expression of viewpoints that are controversial or offensive to some of its members ... That forum is protecting free speech.
  
• When a bookstore or library allows books to sit on the shelves even though the proprietor disagrees with or objects to some of those books ... That person or organization is protecting free speech.
• When a film studio produces and distributes a movie despite public pressure to censor the film because of the supposed immorality of its subject matter or the unpopular views of the director or leading actor .... That film studio is protecting free speech.
• When a domain registrar permits a domain name to be transferred and thereby continue to exist, even though the website on that domain is full of content that – legal though it may be – is judged immoral by the majority of the public and even the registrar staff and owner ... That registrar is protecting free speech.
• When a private university engages a guest speaker in spite of the backlash from students demonstrating against that person's controversial views ... That university is protecting free speech.
• When an employer is annoyed with or offended by the views expressed by his employee, but appreciates that open expression of differing views makes any team stronger and therefore doesn't fire that employee ... That boss is protecting free speech.

You say that freedom of speech is not protected. Nobody is forced to be tolerant. But thoughtful people choose to protect the right of others to express views they disagree with. And if that isn't protecting free speech, then I don't know what you'd call it.

Perhaps you're not noticing the difference between (A) a legal requirement to protect free speech; and (B) a voluntary principled decision to protect free speech.

bmugford said:

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Click to expand...

Never in my life have I heard anyone claim that. Every 5-year-old child knows that if it calls its mother a $&@!%#!, then it won't get any ice cream.

bmugford said:

I stand by my comments.

Click to expand...

That's fine. I think you're talking about legal requirements to protect free speech. But I'm talking about the principle itself, which is more important fundamentally. Throughout most of history, and in many countries today, and in most contexts of daily life, there is no legal assurance of freedom of speech – exactty as you say. So the only freedom of speech that matters to us in those contexts is the abstract principle, which it is critical to defend.

@Fancy.domains

You raise good points. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Some limits are recognized in most places, though they vary:

Libel and slander are illegal in most places. (In the UK, injunctions are more limiting that anything in the USA.)

Terrorist cookbooks are, I presume, illegal too, since they can be linked persuasively to violent acts, which are illegal.

Holocaust denial is more complicated. As you say, it's illegal in some EU countries. I remember discussing that issue online myself somewhere about a year ago. In the USA, freedom of speech is more absolute; and such a limitation wouldn't be possible.

Where to place limits on speech is a discussion that society will never stop having. Locke was a huge advance over the centuries that preceded him in Britain, yet even he wanted to ban atheists and catholics. We've made progress since. Yet artists, communists and socialists, members of the LGBT community, and others weren't very free to speak during the 19th and 20th centuries, even though Mill had articulated the general principle already.

To the extent that those groups flourish today, it's not because the government changed its laws about freedom of speech. The U.S. constitution is exactly the same as it was in the backward slave-owning days when it was written. So what changed, if the law didn't? If freedom of speech ONLY exists as a legal obligation not to make laws prohibiting it, and that is the same in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century, then what accounts for the tremendous freedom to speak that such groups now enjoy? (At least in the USA, to stick with that example.)

The only change has been an awakening in the general public. Private platforms, companies, organizations, groups, publishers, and their members – they have built a consensus out of phililosophers' earlier ideas and established social norms that are more tolerant and permissive. In other words, people became conscious of freedom of speech as a value, embraced it, and voluntarily practiced it wherever they held sway.

Slanted said:

That's fine. I think you're talking about legal requirements to protect free speech. But I'm talking about the principle itself, which is more important fundamentally. Throughout most of history, and in many countries today, and in most contexts of daily life, there is no legal assurance of freedom of speech – exactty as you say. So the only freedom of speech that matters to us in those contexts is the abstract principle, which it is critical to defend.

Click to expand...

I am generally a strong proponent of free speech & expression.

Clearly though "free speech" is not unlimited. That has been determined legally and for good cause.

Some examples of speech/expression that is not protected -

- Saying fire in a crowded theater
- Threatening someone
- Making false statements about certain things
- Inciting violence with speech
- Certain forms of obscenity
- Defamation / Libel
- Many others...

You can say that is tautology, AKA it is a crime because it is illegal.
But if all those were considered "free speech" the world would be a far worse place.

There has to be reasonable limitations to what is acceptable as a society.

Slanted said:

Never in my life have I heard anyone claim that. Every 5-year-old child knows that if it calls its mother a $&@!%#!, then it won't get any ice cream.

Click to expand...

Such an obvious concept right? Maybe Rob should have thought of that before he posted what he did.

Brad

Bernard Wright said:

Life can be tragic. We have no right to privacy in the public square. We can be video recorded against our will, whether we are eating ice cream or falling victim to a crime.
I would defend the right of anything you have proposed to remain free under freedom of speech laws.

Click to expand...

so you are saying

when you are gathering with like-minded people
in a room that is reserved for a certain group of people

and a manic comes in and shoots you and your friends
a maniac who doesn't belong to that group
and was not invited

now comes in and shoots you and your friends to death
and films it

it's then your own fault
-regardless that you are now dead and can't complain-
that you have been in a "public space"
- I highly doubt it's public before the filming happened -
and now it's ok for the whole world to
to watch you die
and shall listen to what sick ideas this mad guy has to tell the world


really ?
thats what free speech is for you?

think twice
or better
10 times

I think it's a brilliant idea not to give these people a voice
and no attention too

when you don't listen to them
and don't talk about them
and don't spread their ideas
they have no reason to do so again

it makes no sense
if nobody cares

Pres. Grump is very much against free speech. He only wants to hear what flatters and supports him or his “policies.” He’d love for us to be a society of North Koreans who bow down to him.

And yet there are supposed free speech advocate conservatives who champion him. Why?

Bernard Wright said:

...all or nothing and we lock our own doors at night, but we do not lock our neighbors inside their homes from the outside, even if they are scary.

Click to expand...

unfortunately, life is not as simple.

there is no all or nothing
no black and white
no good or evil

thats just a mean to help the simple structured minds
to be able to live a day to day life.

and it's a great way to manipulate the masses

really sad
but that this is simply not the truth.

most things exist in a much more complex situation
and are neither black nor white

but I feel with you when you can't agree
how could you?
we are all limited to what we are
no way out