Limits on freedom of speech

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go

Limits on free speech

Yay
18
55%
Nay
15
45%
 
Total votes: 33
User avatar
Elaro
Posts: 428
Joined: 01 Jun 2007, 17:43
First Video: Three PS3s
Location: In Montreal

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Elaro » 22 Jul 2016, 10:59

You know, americans talk a lot about the chilling effect of punishment on speech, but isn't cooling down sometimes a good thing?
Image
Image
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15774
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Elomin Sha » 22 Jul 2016, 12:06

Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.


You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
empath
Posts: 13531
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 17:20
First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
Location: back in the arse end of nowhere

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby empath » 22 Jul 2016, 12:51

Elomin Sha wrote:Soooo, the joke was that he's annoyed that after all the years he's defended him saying he's living his dream because he's dying, that he hasn't died yet?


Yeah. Pretty NOT funny, huh? :|


Apparently the humour is that the syndrome the kid has is always mentioned but never explained, so everyone automatically assumes that it's terminal and by letting him do this, they're fulfilling a 'last wish'... The humour is supposed to be not at the kid but at the comedian (and the general public) for jumping to this conclusion, and not at all implying that the kid is a fraud for having a serious disorder and not dying from it in the short-term :roll:

again I say :|


Rights and freedoms are never absolute; they always come with restrictions, because otherwise they'd easily end up denying other people their rights and freedoms.

"Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose."

I'd voted 'yay' in the poll way back when it started (and apparently I'm The Swing Voter) not because I feel new limits should be placed on existing freedoms, but LIMITATIONS ALREADY EXIST FOR THOSE FREEDOMS and I feel they should remain.
Image
Image
Image
CamelKnackRambleHort
Posts: 127
Joined: 03 Apr 2015, 21:24
First Video: Cursing

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby CamelKnackRambleHort » 22 Jul 2016, 12:54

Personally, my next action would depend heavily on context. History with the individual, the venue where the thing was said and the refusal made, etc. Since they appear to be polite my first step would be to ask why not. The most likely situation is that the individual doesn't know that what they are doing is damaging, or at least the extent to which simple words like these are damaging. It seems inconsistent that a well meaning and polite individual would choose to continue to deliberately hurt and insult people around them instead of make a minor change to their speech pattern.
She/her please
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15774
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Elomin Sha » 22 Jul 2016, 15:31

empath wrote:
Elomin Sha wrote:Soooo, the joke was that he's annoyed that after all the years he's defended him saying he's living his dream because he's dying, that he hasn't died yet?


Yeah. Pretty NOT funny, huh? :|


Apparently the humour is that the syndrome the kid has is always mentioned but never explained, so everyone automatically assumes that it's terminal and by letting him do this, they're fulfilling a 'last wish'... The humour is supposed to be not at the kid but at the comedian (and the general public) for jumping to this conclusion, and not at all implying that the kid is a fraud for having a serious disorder and not dying from it in the short-term :roll:

again I say :|


Rights and freedoms are never absolute; they always come with restrictions, because otherwise they'd easily end up denying other people their rights and freedoms.

"Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose."

I'd voted 'yay' in the poll way back when it started (and apparently I'm The Swing Voter) not because I feel new limits should be placed on existing freedoms, but LIMITATIONS ALREADY EXIST FOR THOSE FREEDOMS and I feel they should remain.


It would be funny, but it takes too long to get to the punchline. And as it is typed inflections, noise and pauses aren't there for the effect. I've laughed at these types of jokes before, some to do with health, age of someone not being dead (Margaret Thatcher, The Queen refusing to die to annoy Charles in not getting the throne.
It's called morbid/gallows humour; some liek easy going ones and some like edgier. Also was the person it was targeted at offended?
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
Elaro
Posts: 428
Joined: 01 Jun 2007, 17:43
First Video: Three PS3s
Location: In Montreal

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Elaro » 22 Jul 2016, 15:48

Elomin Sha wrote:
empath wrote:
Elomin Sha wrote:Soooo, the joke was that he's annoyed that after all the years he's defended him saying he's living his dream because he's dying, that he hasn't died yet?


Yeah. Pretty NOT funny, huh? :|


Apparently the humour is that the syndrome the kid has is always mentioned but never explained, so everyone automatically assumes that it's terminal and by letting him do this, they're fulfilling a 'last wish'... The humour is supposed to be not at the kid but at the comedian (and the general public) for jumping to this conclusion, and not at all implying that the kid is a fraud for having a serious disorder and not dying from it in the short-term :roll:

again I say :|


Rights and freedoms are never absolute; they always come with restrictions, because otherwise they'd easily end up denying other people their rights and freedoms.

"Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose."

I'd voted 'yay' in the poll way back when it started (and apparently I'm The Swing Voter) not because I feel new limits should be placed on existing freedoms, but LIMITATIONS ALREADY EXIST FOR THOSE FREEDOMS and I feel they should remain.


It would be funny, but it takes too long to get to the punchline. And as it is typed inflections, noise and pauses aren't there for the effect. I've laughed at these types of jokes before, some to do with health, age of someone not being dead (Margaret Thatcher, The Queen refusing to die to annoy Charles in not getting the throne.
It's called morbid/gallows humour; some liek easy going ones and some like edgier. Also was the person it was targeted at offended?


He wasn't just offended. He was bullied for it.

The comedian was literally going "c'mon, die, guy!" and "Why isn't he dead?". In his show.
Image
Image
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15774
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Elomin Sha » 22 Jul 2016, 17:26

If he was personally offended, sure. I didn't know if people were getting riled up on his behalf.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby korvys » 22 Jul 2016, 20:31

That he was not offended should not be a defence. If it's decided that what he was saying is not ok, then it's not ok. I don't use the word 'gay' as an insult, not because I'm concerned a gay person will hear me use it an be offended, but because I believe that conflating 'gay' with 'bad' contributes to a overall attitude that being gay is bad, amongst all people. Same as 'retarded', using mental disability as an insult. If anything, I far more concerned that my actions will encourage or reinforce the beliefs of someone who hears me who actually does believe being gay is bad. Avoiding offence of the people around me is not my only concern.

If mocking a person due to their disability, etc, is a crime, then it's a crime. That the target was or was not affected by it I imagine would result in a difference in damages awarded, but that's different.

Elomin Sha wrote:
Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.


You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?

Then you stop talking to that person. If you have told them what they're saying is upsetting you, and they refuse to stop saying it (excepting that there may be no other way to say what they're saying), then they're either calling you a liar (i.e. they don't believe you are actually upset by it) or they are choosing their convenience of vocabulary over the courtesy of not intentionally upsetting you during this conversation. No one need subject themselves to either of those people.

Certainly, there is debate to be had about whether someone should be upset by some words, but to deny how another person feels about something, or to disregard it, regardless of whether they believe those feelings to be valid, would be incredibly disrespectful and rude.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
Prospero101
Posts: 2372
Joined: 26 Jan 2013, 08:19
First Video: Feed Dump: Soldiers of Fortune
Location: The suburb of a city that doesn't exist

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Prospero101 » 22 Jul 2016, 21:25

Elomin Sha wrote:
Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.


You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?


Put bluntly, I don't have to listen to that person. Again, free speech guarantees that you can SAY what you like, but it does not guarantee you a receptive audience. Free speech provides the corner on which to shout, not the crowd gathered around the soapbox.
It's all over but the crying. And the taxes.

"Perfectionism might look good in his shiny shoes, but he's kind of an asshole and no one invites him to their pool parties."
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby korvys » 22 Jul 2016, 21:35

Also, the crowd might shout back.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
Dutch guy
Posts: 5200
Joined: 11 Feb 2008, 17:12
First Video: History of Halo
Location: Southern Dutch Colonies

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Dutch guy » 23 Jul 2016, 03:34

Prospero101 wrote:
Elomin Sha wrote:
Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.


You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?


Put bluntly, I don't have to listen to that person. Again, free speech guarantees that you can SAY what you like, but it does not guarantee you a receptive audience. Free speech provides the corner on which to shout, not the crowd gathered around the soapbox.


Not even that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences from speech. It only protects you against law enforcement/the government limiting your speech. It does not protect you from being shunned from society or punched in the face by another individual.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with "normal human interaction" or what is acceptable to say to another person. It ONLY has implications for what a governing entity (be it local LEO's, city officials or senators or the president) is allowed to say and/or do to limit what you say.
THE DUTCH!! THE DUTCH AGAIN!!!!!
Elomin Sha wrote:Dutch guy is the King of the Dutch.
User avatar
Psyclone
Posts: 1862
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 02:23
First Video: Christmas Carolling on Halloween
Location: Walla^2

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Psyclone » 23 Jul 2016, 13:21

I can only speak in an American context, but:

To continue with the soapbox metaphor, provided they are not receiving money from the government and don't break any existing laws (nondiscrimination, etc.), any person or institution is perfectly within their rights to take away your soapbox. If you are, for example, using twitter to harass people, twitter can ban you because it is a private institution and you agreed to follow its rules when you signed up.

Even in places that do receive government funding, like (American) public schools, there are limits on what you can say. Free speech is not absolute, no matter where you are. Libel is not protected speech, so there's no reason hate speech has to be.
They/them/their pronouns

twitch: armadillorampant
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby korvys » 23 Jul 2016, 15:34

Even in America, there is speech that is legal, but becomes illegal in certain contexts. Sending a text message to a person propositioning them is legal. Sending a hundred is harassment. Preaching from a soapbox might be legal, but shouting from a soapbox at all hours of the day and night is a public disturbance.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15774
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Elomin Sha » 23 Jul 2016, 15:49

I put a picture of my fractured toe (it's brusied) and it was marked as offensive. What?
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
Dutch guy
Posts: 5200
Joined: 11 Feb 2008, 17:12
First Video: History of Halo
Location: Southern Dutch Colonies

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Dutch guy » 23 Jul 2016, 16:08

Psyclone wrote:I can only speak in an American context, but:

To continue with the soapbox metaphor, provided they are not receiving money from the government and don't break any existing laws (nondiscrimination, etc.), any person or institution is perfectly within their rights to take away your soapbox. If you are, for example, using twitter to harass people, twitter can ban you because it is a private institution and you agreed to follow its rules when you signed up.

Even in places that do receive government funding, like (American) public schools, there are limits on what you can say. Free speech is not absolute, no matter where you are. Libel is not protected speech, so there's no reason hate speech has to be.


Thing is though. With a company like twitter where providing the soapbox in the first place IS its actual business and use of the platform is as widespread as it is, the line between legitimate "everybody thinks you're not a nice person, we won't help you be an idiot" and "WE don't like you, go away"(Where we is a nebulous corporate decision, possibly influenced by politics and law enforcement) is very very blurry. There is plenty of evidence to suggests Twitter actively influences which topics become trending and more importantly do NOT become trending (even though they are the most used subjects). To me this starts encroaching on "limiting freedom of speech" again. Because now you have a corporation whose business model is providing everyone with soapboxes that decides who gets to "be heard by millions" and how has no chance.
THE DUTCH!! THE DUTCH AGAIN!!!!!
Elomin Sha wrote:Dutch guy is the King of the Dutch.
User avatar
Psyclone
Posts: 1862
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 02:23
First Video: Christmas Carolling on Halloween
Location: Walla^2

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Psyclone » 23 Jul 2016, 18:37

Dutch guy wrote:
Psyclone wrote:I can only speak in an American context, but:

To continue with the soapbox metaphor, provided they are not receiving money from the government and don't break any existing laws (nondiscrimination, etc.), any person or institution is perfectly within their rights to take away your soapbox. If you are, for example, using twitter to harass people, twitter can ban you because it is a private institution and you agreed to follow its rules when you signed up.

Even in places that do receive government funding, like (American) public schools, there are limits on what you can say. Free speech is not absolute, no matter where you are. Libel is not protected speech, so there's no reason hate speech has to be.


Thing is though. With a company like twitter where providing the soapbox in the first place IS its actual business and use of the platform is as widespread as it is, the line between legitimate "everybody thinks you're not a nice person, we won't help you be an idiot" and "WE don't like you, go away"(Where we is a nebulous corporate decision, possibly influenced by politics and law enforcement) is very very blurry. There is plenty of evidence to suggests Twitter actively influences which topics become trending and more importantly do NOT become trending (even though they are the most used subjects). To me this starts encroaching on "limiting freedom of speech" again. Because now you have a corporation whose business model is providing everyone with soapboxes that decides who gets to "be heard by millions" and how has no chance.


BUT because twitter is a private entity, all of that is legal. It's a grey enough area that they can probably be sued for it, but there's nothing explicitly stating they can't do it. Now of course you can debate whether it's right, and I agree with you that having monolithic corporations like facebook and twitter influencing what we see as important is dangerous, but that's not free speech as it's defined in the bill of rights (again, American context). The other side of that is, of course, that they can be called out for it, just like any one of us can be called out for saying or doing questionable things.

Personally, I don't think that twitter does nearly enough to curtail free speech. The whole Milo debacle is only the latest example of it, and as far as I can see he's one of the few people twitter actually banned. Twitter's harassment problem is a much bigger deal (to me) than them potentially screening or influencing trending topics.

I should add that all this is a technicality, and I only bring it up as a reminder that "free speech" as we think of it doesn't exist and can't be put on a pedestal. I don't think the strict legality or illegality of these cases is a super important part of this discussion and I don't mean to get fixed on it.
They/them/their pronouns

twitch: armadillorampant
User avatar
Arclight_Dynamo
Posts: 540
Joined: 18 Jul 2014, 12:44
First Video: Desert Bus 1

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Arclight_Dynamo » 23 Jul 2016, 21:20

I don't even think Twitter can be sued for it - to post there, you need to agree to legal terms that give Twitter the absolute right to remove your tweets or ban you for any reason whatsoever.
User avatar
Psyclone
Posts: 1862
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 02:23
First Video: Christmas Carolling on Halloween
Location: Walla^2

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby Psyclone » 24 Jul 2016, 00:13

I don't think I read the twitter TOS when I signed up, so that's good to know. I think any suit might be more along the lines of manipulating trending results, but since facebook hasn't faced any legal action that I'm aware of for doing the same thing with their trending topics, I think you're right.
They/them/their pronouns

twitch: armadillorampant
User avatar
SAJewers
Posts: 505
Joined: 28 Jan 2012, 11:18
First Video: Tuscon or Bust
Location: Halifax

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby SAJewers » 17 Feb 2017, 18:58

Not usually one to necro a thread, but I just read this and wanted to post this somewhere. Thoughts?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-free-speech-guided-by-judgment-and-conscience-not-rules
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Limits on freedom of speech

Postby korvys » 17 Feb 2017, 21:43

I agree with pretty much all of that column. There are no absolutes (he says, absolutely). The answer to pretty much any hypothetical question on free speech is "It depends".
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests