Freedom of speech (was:this is why i hate ethics class)

[blackwolf77]

good call and comperr ur absolutely right, free speech is free and hopefully will always be free, actions caused by these freedoms should be persecuted but not the actual speech themselves, but how do you feel about cursing? is it ok to create words we shouldn't say? is there a point? more importantly why did we as people who believe in the right to free speech create words that we should not say?

[sidebottom]

I personally don't believe that freedom of speech should be regulated to any degree. If what a person says caused others to be injured (Theater example) they can be prosecuted on that basis. If a person verbally attacks someone because of their race and this incites others to physically attack the people of that particular race, then the person who incited the actions can be prosecuted on that basis.

I'm confused, Dredric1...you say you don't believe free speech should be regulated "to any degree" but you think that if "what a person says caused others to be injured ... they can be prosecuted on that basis." Are you stating the fact that they currently CAN be prosecuted according to law or stating opinion that they SHOULD be? If it is the latter you are contradicting yourself.

---

comperr, your view on free speech is rather myopic. I don't think you read my original posts in this thread; if I am wrong and you did read my discourse with banon thoroughly, then you did not quite understand my point.

I think it is ironic that you say you believe in unconditional free speech but put exceptions for what you call commercial free speech (i.e. false advertising). What is even MORE ironic is that even YOU have put limitations on free speech. Take for example the rules you PERSONALLY have set in these forums (viewtopic.php?f=87&t=916)

However where the language is clearly intended to offend rather than to clarify a viewpoint the post will not be allowed and action can be taken.

Additionally, in the official terms of service which you have also set, you state:

You may not use HackThisSite to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site, including but not limited to advertising sales without express approval from HackThisSite 's authorized agents.

So according to these two statements you are making it against the rules to use hate speech or use the forums to advertise. Those are just limitations on free speech you have imposed when you said there should be none.

So comperr, you DON'T believe in absolute free speech. My point, which you OBVIOUSLY agree with, is that it is necessary to limit when and where people can say things. You are doing it here and there is nothing wrong with that because it is in the best interest of the entire community. On these forums, you are an administrator (along with several others) and there are four moderators. What need would there be for so much "authority" and "moderating" on a forum where supposedly anyone can say anything? The truth is, without moderators, whose only purpose is to regulate speech on these forums, the forums could be inundated with spam and flame wars which would inhibit legitimate users of the forums to operate effectively. This goes for so many others things as well.

I have already articulated my arguments months ago in this thread but I will reiterate the bottom line: Speech in the context we are referring is the expression of ideas. The ideas should NOT be limited or silenced, but how, when, where they are expressed must be.

[comperr]

but how do you feel about cursing?

Its a waste of energy - usually

is it ok to create words we shouldn't say?

Government - or us?

is there a point? more importantly why did we as people who believe in the right to free speech create words that we should not say?

Because "we" didn't, Someone else did.

-- Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:57 pm --

I think it is ironic that you say you believe in unconditional free speech but put exceptions for what you call commercial free speech (i.e. false advertising). What is even MORE ironic is that even YOU have put limitations on free speech. Take for example the rules you PERSONALLY have set in these forums (viewtopic.php?f=87&t=916)

Firstly the commercial speech issue isn't so much speech as it is the harm that results.
Secondly This forum isn't the government. PRIVATE companies that you work for or whose service you use /should/ be allowed to limit your speech provided that you agree to the terms and they disclose what the terms are.
Thirdly this is an educational site: I want to remove spam and other useless comments. I will never censor a post just because of a viewpoint.

You are doing it here and there is nothing wrong with that because it is in the best interest of the entire community.

To clarify: THIS community; you could leave if you want. This is not the governement

I have already articulated my arguments months ago in this thread but I will reiterate the bottom line: Speech in the context we are referring is the expression of ideas. The ideas should NOT be limited or silenced, but how, when, where they are expressed must be.

If the government controls what "ideas" are they control /which/ ideas are.

[blackwolf77]

sidebottom you bring up an interesting point. I think again that comperr is not limiting the free expression of people hwo want to advertise and insult, rather he is punishing the results of these actions. If people could advertise all over this site would any of us be here right now? would we be able to find our way to this site through all the bullshit? would any of us want to put up with it? Furthermore, the results of insulting anoother user can go (not exclusively) as follows...
-new user joins
-new user asks dumb question
-new user promptly gets insulted and belittled
-user quits and is turned off to something that we all love to do and some of us stake a career in
So in short Comperr's view are neither myopic or ironic because in no way is he limiting free speech, rather he is punishing the results of the actions taken.

[smalltowncynic]

blackwolf has an interesting point however,

In my opinion there is a line between insult and freedom of speech.

I think that insulting is rather shouting random stuff, while freedom of speech mostly inhabits an opinion. This opinion is mostly well thought about, and there are arguments to be told that strengthen this opinion.

If I would tell you that I hate hackers, because they are known do demolish stuff (talking about black hats here) because I got hacked a while ago, they made my passwords dissapear and they basically formatted my computer, then it is a whole lot different than if I would say: "All hackers are bad", wouldn't it?

Same goes for other points that were being discussed here. Some people might post here to shock, insult or belittle others. They don't give any reasoning about why they made a post.

Conclusion of my story is: I think freedom of speech is a good thing. Any human, at any place, at the time he wants to should be able to say what he or she is thinking. It would be a bad thing to take that away. However, shouting random stuff to insult or shock people shouldn't be, in my opinion, considered as freedom of speech. They say those things just to get attention, or whatever reason they have.

Regards,

STC

[comperr]

blackwolf has an interesting point however,

In my opinion there is a line between insult and freedom of speech.

There might be, however who decides?
As I said before: if the government decides what[i] ideas are, they decide which[/i] idea are.

I think that insulting is rather shouting random stuff, while freedom of speech mostly inhabits an opinion. This opinion is mostly well thought about, and there are arguments to be told that strengthen this opinion.

You are defining the difference between rational and irrational.
The fact that I enjoy eating pizza is certainly something most people would allow me to say in public, but it isn't rational in any regard - I never decided that I am going to like eating pizza. (I'm ignoring the fact that all of logic is based on emotions but that a side point)

Conclusion of my story is: I think freedom of speech is a good thing. Any human, at any place, at the time he wants to should be able to say what he or she is thinking. It would be a bad thing to take that away. However, shouting random stuff to insult or shock people shouldn't be, in my opinion, considered as freedom of speech. They say those things just to get attention, or whatever reason they have.

Just to point out: sometimes you do need to shock people.
I was heard about advertisements: if anyone was focusing all there energy on listening no one would buy, but people don't. They see it as they are focusing on something else so you shock them with something to get them to listen. Furthermore perhaps it is my opinion that I should be allowed to shock or insult others. How could I explain that to you if it were illegal to do so?

[sidebottom]

No offense, but you guys really need to open your minds. First, you are incorrectly defining free speech as just being able to express a belief. Free speech is more than just being able to say "I do/don't believe ____." People have claimed free speech on MANY things other than "I do/don't believe _____." An example of this is the distribution of trade secrets in the DeCSS case which was also a violation of the DMCA.

Next, let's look at the original question again:

"should free speech ever have limitations?"

You are misconstruing the original question to be "should the government limit what ideas are allowed to be expressed?" That is NOT the question. Stop thinking of this question as "the government" vs. everyone else; government officials and legislators are not the only ones that can take away peoples' freedoms. The answer to the original question is YES, it SHOULD have limitations and you have BOTH agreed with me on that. Examples:

Commercial speech is also different: Then you have issues of false advertisement and such. But in general I would assume speech is allowed unless you could show that someone will get harmed as a direct result of it.

Sooo you're basically saying, say whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. So you are proving MY point of the classic idea of 'your rights end where mine begin.'

PRIVATE companies that you work for or whose service you use /should/ be allowed to limit your speech provided that you agree to the terms and they disclose what the terms are.

Now you are saying that PEOPLE in private companies can limit a persons free speech but PEOPLE in government can't. Really, what is the big difference between the two? They both boil down to PEOPLE limiting other PEOPLES' free speech. What if ALL the private companies in a country decided that it was against company policy to think a certain way or say certain things. With YOUR logic, would it be perfectly fine to fire all the people that didn't conform to your views. Therefore, if you wanted a job you would HAVE to think (or pretend to think) a certain way?

How about if every ISP decided in their Terms of Service that internet traffic with certain words would be blocked? We would be stuck using their service because there is no other option (e.g. China).

The government is not blocking free speech in the two previous examples, private companies are.

If people could advertise all over this site would any of us be here right now? would we be able to find our way to this site through all the bullshit? would any of us want to put up with it?

Exactly my point! If we had UNCONDITIONAL free speech, then any spammer would have the right to spam ANYWHERE at ANYTIME. Thankfully, we can protect OUR rights by limiting the rights of OTHERS!

Now let's say that the law of the land is that NO ONE (including government, private companies, and individuals) was allowed to limit another person's right to free speech in any way. If this were the case and free speech NEVER had any limitations, it would make it illegal for you (comperr) to take down ANY posts for ANY reason because each post, no matter how redundant and/or useless (i.e. spam, flames, etc.), would be protected as freedom of expression. Whether you like it or not YOU, comperr, are limiting free speech, albeit within reason, on these forums each time you remove a spam or flame post. YOU are being the judge of what is appropriate and what is not. If I were to make posts about how much user X sucks you may deem that inapporpriate and remove that post. However, if I were to make posts about how much the government sucks, it would probably spark some interesting debate and it would be allowed. But you as an authority here would be making the judgement of which expression is appropriate and which is not.

If free speech never had any limitations, it would make crimes such as giving people death-threats acceptable. A threat is just an expression of feelings and emotions, it doesn't actually physically harm a person, right? So as long as they didn't follow through with the threat, there would be no problem even though the threats are limiting another's right to their "pursuit of happiness?"

If free speech never had any limitations, it would make it fine for anyone (say ... corporate news organizations, maybe) to make up lies about anyone and publish them as truth. The offended wouldn't be allowed to sue for libel because after all, it's just words and expression.

If free speech never had any limitations, laws that protect peoples' medical records and financial records would be unconstitutional. For example, publishing peoples medical records in a newspaper would be fine too.

If free speech never had any limitations, ANY person or company could make ANY claims about their product and advertise it as such. After all, even though they are not true, it is their right to say whatever they want whenever they want, right?

Well, I think I have wasted enough time arguing my point of view on this topic. I hope this is the last I'll be posting on this because if it hasn't sunk in yet, it never will.

[blackwolf77]

sidebottom you missed the 2nd half of my and comperr's arguments, we are not saying free speech would be limited we are saying it should be 100% free what examples you point out about limits we impose is a punishment on the results of the said words... i.e. we are not punishing a slammer because they insult other people, we punish them because the results are 100% negative. Likewise with advertisements we are not limiting their right to advertise rather we are punishing the implications of these actions i.e. there being ridiculous amounts of bullshit all over the site. Again with big companies they restrict people from sharing secrets not because they want to limit the persons speech, but to prevent any lossess of profit that the release of the info might result in.

[KraQ]

Freedom of Speech is a touchy subject. There's a place for it, and there isn't it.

[mutants_r_us_guild]

Freedom of Speech is a touchy subject. There's a place for it, and there isn't it.

No... no.. no no no no!
Freedom of speech means you can talk about it whenever the hell you want. That's just like these schools that will only allow protests in designated "speech freedom zones" Screw that!

Freedom of speech is something that is becoming increasingly rare in US, and I'm sad to see this happen. It's just like the quote header on HTS. The one about saying the words the founding fathers used is a fast way to get labeled as dangerous or whatever. It's true.. speech is no longer free. And there's nobody who can pay the bail.