Freedom of speech... to be able to speak or not to speak, that is the conflict...

[N0s4a2]

My very first post, I hope, I will survive this one...


Before anything, let me say a few things...
For one, I am Belgian, and thus, my relationship to the US is... unrelated.
I am totally crazy... but that should have been obvious by the previous statement that I am Belgian, and therefore... yeah... you get it, didn't you...
Now, what I am going to address is a spiky turtle on super steroids which has the size of a donkey, that has the habit of trying to bite everyone in the bollocks, but I think, it should be made approachable...
And I have faith, that you, dear Sith reader, will overcome your anger and hatred towards me, poor, small, invaluable Jedi wannabe of the I-lost-count-grade... (*prays to the Holy String(theorem) that I'm right, and not in danger of losing limb or other body parts*)

Here we go (*puts on a serious face*):
Should Freedom of Speech be limited...

Before you're going to lynch me, let me tell you a few things.
I've asked this question before, and the public there was not happy with my question.
And no-one said: yes it could/should be limited.
As reasons they gave for instance: If we allow this, then the government will abuse it and make new, worse laws around this.

Now, well sure, this might actually happen, if the government would consist of tyrants.
And if so... and if altering the rules around Freedom of Speech would be done... then rest assured, they would not stop there.
Right?

I mean, think about it.
Let's assume, a fella puts on a successful coup.
Do you think, he would even think about that paper from 300 years ago?
Do you think, he would care about what is written on it?
Don't you think, if he breaks the rules set in the Freedom of Speech amendment, that he will terminate all laws, since he would be breaking an amendment, and is therefore a criminal?

Now, imagine it's not a coup succeeding tyrant, but a normal tyrant, elected and whatnot.
If he were to alter the rules, he would be equally guilty, is it not?
And what decent, caring (oh well, we can dream and fantasize, right?) political party would support such changes?
Chances would be slim, at the very least, no?

So, I would argue, that this reason, and similar reasons, would be invalid, isn't it?

Now, WHAT would be altered...
First: Banning of hate speech and inciting crime:
Things like racism, homophobia, and other equally banter would be banned and removed from hereon.
Moreover: invalid ideas such as immigrants stealing your wives and eating your children is not just wrong, but potentially damaging and dangerous.

Secondly: Banning of false, incorrect stuff:
Any data that can be scientifically or otherwise proven data should be banned, and removed from all media.
This includes scientific data which, for whatever reason, is falsely changed.
Example 1:
Helium 3 needs a temperature of -180°C/93.15K/-292°F to form.
Science has established beyond a doubt that helium 3 forms at −269°C/around 4K/−452.2°F
The data therefore is invalid, thus prone to removal.
Example 2:
Corona is created in a Chinese Bio-Warfare lab, and released upon the local populace to test it's effectiveness.
This piece of misinformation/conspiracy theorizing had quite a bit of damage as result, even in some cases violence towards innocent Chinese people.
This data is not just invalid, but additionally damaging AND dangerous, thus prone to banning and deletion.
Example 3a:
(and apologies: I am NOT bashing Trump, I am stating simple facts here)
The Bleach incident: A well known massive blunder, by some people actually taken as truth, with consequences thereoff.
Example 3b:
The many blatant lies and misinformation spewed in public as the US president: This caused global loss of trust, loss of image, up to even, and I am not exaggerating... the US becoming the global laughing stock, target of ridicule.
But, if you are honest, looking with unbiased, emotion-detached (I am NOT claiming anyone is emotion overwhelmed, or any other form of possible insult), one cannot but, however sad it is, acknowledge this...

(end part 1)

 

[N0s4a2]

Begin part two)

Why:
Well, the reason is... it is inhumane, incorrect, and is of zero morale and ethics (for the hate speech part) and can have loss of lives even as result.
For the second one, it leads to error, misunderstandings, incorrect ideas, ... and thus can be quite damaging in several forms.

Both reasons cannot, or at least, I think so, be debunked and said to be nonsense.
Can it?

If I am correct, and it is in various forms harmful and despicable of nature: would adding these to limitations, WELL DEFINED AND RAZOR SHARP LIMITED "without a possibility" (nothing is absolutely fail proof) to be misinterpreted or abused, be far better than not having such limit?

What, dear reader, is your opinion in this matter?
Be honest, be open, and speak your mind...
Should anything be altered, if so, what and why?
Should anything be added, maybe, if so, what and why?
Or, oppositely... should anything be REMOVED, if so, what and why?
I look forward to your opinions and ideas.

Thank you for participating...

PS: If somehow (and I think not, but one cannot be too sure) broke a rule, please tell me and I will immediately correct the issue.
Thank you.

Noticed the 5000 symbol limit... had to split up post...
Will take notice next time of limit...
Sincere apologies, please forgive me...

 

[TheParser]

Yes, of course, "speech" (oral/print) should be limited.

As our Supreme Court once ruled, you do not have the right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a movie theater.

In practice, however, it is difficult/impossible to know where to draw the line.

Most people seem to agree that any call to actual violence should be prohibited.
Most people seem to agree that defamation should be prohibited.

So I guess that I should have the right to say that I am afraid of. say, Martians, but I should NOT be able to say that Martians should be physically harmed or to say that Martians eat children.

As far as telling "lies," what constitutes a "lie"? Here in the (United) States, some people believe that there was serious fraud in the presidential election. Some people who are in charge of various Internet websites refuse to publish such an accusation, which they consider to be a "lie."

 

[N0s4a2]

Thank you, brother!

So, what is a lie...
Remember the debate between both Trump and Clinton?
He said, forgot what it was about, that almost all police forces stood behind him, or something in that style.
"Call them, they'll tell you."
Even before he finished the I have support part, I already knew it was a blatant lie.

Obama was cause of the dismantling of the World Health department in the US.
Another fine example, I assume...

Simply put: nonfactual, contradictory proven (thus proven to be incorrect/false) statements are per definition lies.

Believing in something does not mean, it is therefore correct.
Someone could believe that ice will form at 3C/37.4F.
Science then states, with tests and undeniable facts to back it up, that it forms at 0C/32F.

One is obviously correct, the other not...

IF a statement cannot be verified (it's a a new theory, for example), then it should be allowed until empirical evidence debunked said theory.

 

[BlueTex]

Thank you, brother!

So, what is a lie...
Remember the debate between both Trump and Clinton?
He said, forgot what it was about, that almost all police forces stood behind him, or something in that style.
"Call them, they'll tell you."
Even before he finished the I have support part, I already knew it was a blatant lie.

Obama was cause of the dismantling of the World Health department in the US.
Another fine example, I assume...

Simply put: nonfactual, contradictory proven (thus proven to be incorrect/false) statements are per definition lies.

Believing in something does not mean, it is therefore correct.
Someone could believe that ice will form at 3C/37.4F.
Science then states, with tests and undeniable facts to back it up, that it forms at 0C/32F.

One is obviously correct, the other not...

IF a statement cannot be verified (it's a a new theory, for example), then it should be allowed until empirical evidence debunked said theory.

The first amendment in the United States protects all of us from the the GOVERNMENT restricting speech only. Individuals and companies can restrict speech to their hearts desire... Much of the debate in the US these days relies on confusion about this simple principal.

 

[N0s4a2]

Much of the debate in the US these days relies on confusion about this simple principal.

Aha?
Why thank you for that piece of information!!!
If it is not even clear to "most US citizens", you can imagine how unclear things are for us NON-US people.

The US Gerrymandering system, for instance, 90% of Europeans probably never even have heard of it.
Let alone, understand it.

Thank you, sir, most appreciated.

 

[NewfieMom]

Why thank you for that piece of information!!!
If it is not even clear to "most US citizens", you can imagine how unclear things are for us NON-US people.

US citizens need to be more informed about how their government works. If the citizenry understood the way that their government was set up, for instance that we have three branches of government and that they are supposed to check each others' power, fewer people would have fallen under Trump's thrall. The educational system in the United States was never perfect, but it has gotten more lax in teaching civics/government in recent decades. As someone who recently taught citizenship to immigrants studying to take a test for US citizenship, I can assure you that they must learn more than student must to graduate from high school.

 

[Glitch]

No right is absolute. They all have limits. In the US we place that limit on whether or not it causes harm. Using speech or publications to slander or libel someone causes them harm, and therefore we have tort laws that prohibit that activity. The number of laws against using arms to harm another, for example, is almost beyond count. Yet the Second Amendment still guarantees Americans the individual right to keep and bear arms. Every constitutionally enumerated right is limited by the fact that no harm must be caused to someone else. As the adage goes, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Hate speech causes no harm, and while it may be offensive and contrary to the overwhelming majority of views, it should be protected speech. The First Amendment of the US Constitution specifically exists to protect that speech with which we disagree. It everyone agreed with what was said or published, then speech would not need protecting.

The banning of false information and intentional lies goes back to the tort laws. If it can be proven beyond a preponderance of a doubt that the lie caused financial harm, then the offender may be civilly sued. The US courts have already ruled that the US media may intentionally lie with impunity - providing, of course, that they do not libel, slander, or otherwise violate tort laws. A lie or misinformation that causes no harm is merely another way of saying "fiction." I'm sure you heard the President describe the US media as "Fake News." He is not wrong, but they are allowed to be fake and spread misinformation and have done so for decades. Sometimes, however, they cross the line. Like in the case of Nicholas Sandmann, where CNN slandered him and ended up paying $275 million in damages.

Most of the time the fiction the US media portrays harms no one. Like using a green-screen to project a scene from Iraq or Afghanistan in order to make it seem like the propagandist (formerly described as a reporter) is reporting live from the combat zone when in reality they are in their studio in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a deliberate lie, misinformation, but causes no harm and is therefore protected speech.

 

[What if...?]

Yes, of course, "speech" (oral/print) should be limited.

As our Supreme Court once ruled, you do not have the right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a movie theater.

In practice, however, it is difficult/impossible to know where to draw the line.

Most people seem to agree that any call to actual violence should be prohibited.
Most people seem to agree that defamation should be prohibited.

So I guess that I should have the right to say that I am afraid of. say, Martians, but I should NOT be able to say that Martians should be physically harmed or to say that Martians eat children.

As far as telling "lies," what constitutes a "lie"? Here in the (United) States, some people believe that there was serious fraud in the presidential election. Some people who are in charge of various Internet websites refuse to publish such an accusation, which they consider to be a "lie."

Well, considering there has been no actual evidence provided, but there has been a LOT of propaganda messaging, it would seem to most that lies have been told to trump's supporters and they believed them.

Therefore, banning lies would have limited the nonsense we've been seeing.

I personally would prefer some kind of app that identifies persuasive content in an article is statement or newscast. It is designed, after all, based on education in multiple degree tracks. It is at best the artful application of science, and as such can be parsed for manipulative elements.

Then let the people decide if they like the number of attempts to manipulate they are exposed to daily. And especially what their children are being constantly exposed to.

 

[Somerville]

What about those "free speech" cases that are ruled moot by a court because the guilty party has changed the policy, rules, regulations, laws that had hindered "free speech" AFTER the case was filed?

The Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal of such a case after the appellants' request for "nominal damages" had been rejected on the basis that the policy, rules, regulations, laws, which had hindered their rights had been changed. One interesting bit, for me at least, is that the American Humanists Assn has filed an amicus brief supporting the case which is spearheaded by the Alliance Defending Freedom - the two organisations are more frequently seen fighting with each other in court cases.

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, a dispute over religious speech on the grounds of a Georgia college, but the court’s ruling could have implications well beyond academia.

Background
The events leading to the lawsuit now before the Supreme Court began in July 2016, when Chike Uzuegbunam, an evangelical Christian and a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, a public college located in the Atlanta suburb of Lawrenceville, was handing out religious literature on an outdoor plaza outside the campus library. A campus police officer told Uzuegbunam that distributing anything there violated the college’s “freedom of expression” policy, which generally required students to reserve one of two designated areas – a sidewalk and an outdoor plaza – to hand out literature, give speeches, gather or march.

But when Uzuegbunam later reserved one of those zones to hand out literature and speak to students about his religious beliefs, a campus police officer asked him to stop, explaining that Uzuegbunam had not reserved the zone for “open-air speaking.” Noting that campus police had received some calls about Uzuegbunam, the officer also told Uzuegbunam that he was violating the college’s ban on “disorderly conduct” because his speech was disturbing others. Uzuegbunam stopped speaking and, fearing discipline from the college, did not try to speak or hand out literature again. Instead, he filed a lawsuit in December 2016 in federal district court against several college officials and police officers.

It's a long discussion, so some who read the crap I post will figure it's not worth their time to read a bunch of legalese but that is every person's decision - personally, I like 'larnin'

 

[code1211]

What about those "free speech" cases that are ruled moot by a court because the guilty party has changed the policy, rules, regulations, laws that had hindered "free speech" AFTER the case was filed?

The Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal of such a case after the appellants' request for "nominal damages" had been rejected on the basis that the policy, rules, regulations, laws, which had hindered their rights had been changed. One interesting bit, for me at least, is that the American Humanists Assn has filed an amicus brief supporting the case which is spearheaded by the Alliance Defending Freedom - the two organisations are more frequently seen fighting with each other in court cases.



It's a long discussion, so some who read the crap I post will figure it's not worth their time to read a bunch of legalese but that is every person's decision - personally, I like 'larnin'

I'm a little wordy so hardly the one to caution against really, really long posts, but shorter is normally better.

 

[Omniscient]