• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free speech and abusive behavior

derchin

Critical Thinker
derchin
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
353
Said numerous times over on various websites, but should people be able to say whatever they want under the guise of "free speech," despite being hurtful or abusive in directly or indirectly?

When and why does ushering out the "emotional abuse card/you hurt my feelings," render free speech useless? Even if it needs to be said? What about screaming or yelling in anger. Are phrases like "calm down," a weak tactic to curb free speech? Should those effected by apparent words grow up (or "grow a pair") especially if the speech was not intended to be harmful? Are rules and laws created to govern speech useless or stupid?

This is so diverse that its worthy of discussion here. I'm currently not satisfied on either accounts; No one has really swayed my view for either practice.
 
Freedom of speech is only granted from certain governments. No one has freedom of speech from other people, companies, etc. See: the Dixie Chicks and Paula Deen.

People who are abusive then scream "freedom of speech!!!!" are only proving that (A) they are abusive and (B) they don't understand freedom of speech. IMO.
 
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from responsibility for what you say. Having a big mouth does not give one a free pass.

There's also nothing that says people are required to like or tolerate what you say. This is why countries have laws about "hate speech" and discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from responsibility for what you say.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if it's politics, responsibility is eliminated in the USA.

This cuts both ways, and still doesn't bar SLAPP suits.
 
Kid Eager said:
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from responsibility for what you say. Having a big mouth does not give one a free pass.

There's also nothing that says people are required to like or tolerate what you say.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's always disappointed me. I think these people are conflating 'freedom of speech' (a restriction on government) with 'licence' (expecting everybody to docilely approve or even financially subsidize their opinions).

I remember back in my university days as an editor of a student newspaper. A crank wanted me to print his incoherent ramblings, and I refused. He called the police, saying I was violating his 'right to free speech'. Of course I wasn't. What I was refusing to do was subsidize it with student money. We caught him later that week gathering the paper copies from the campus kiosks and stuffing them in dumpsters, saying that if he couldn't get his views published neither should I.

To this day, I associate "but I have freedom of speech, you... you can't respond to my statements in a way that affects me negatively" as sophomoric narcissism.
 
Last edited:
We get that all the time with the forum. Banned people, or sometimes people who don't get through the registration process, scream about how we're violating their freedom of speech. To which I point out that they do not have freedom of speech on a forum such as this one.
 
Note the irony of "I have freedom of speech so you can't crticize what I say"

I have actually had this included in forum FAQs. Yes, you have the right to express your opinion, but so do others, including the opinion that your opinion is dumb.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to critcize the speech of others
 
blutoski said:
Yeah, that's always disappointed me. I think these people are conflating 'freedom of speech' (a restriction on government) with 'licence' (expecting everybody to docilely approve or even financially subsidize their opinions).

I remember back in my university days as an editor of a student newspaper. A crank wanted me to print his incoherent ramblings, and I refused. He called the police, saying I was violating his 'right to free speech'. Of course I wasn't. What I was refusing to do was subsidize it with student money. We caught him later that week gathering the paper copies from the campus kiosks and stuffing them in dumpsters, saying that if he couldn't get his views published neither should I.

To this day, I associate "but I have freedom of speech, you... you can't respond to my statements in a way that affects me negatively" as sophomoric narcissism.
Click to expand...

A slight nit, but "free speech" is not limited to government action. The First Amendment is limited to state actors, and I presume that free speech laws in Canada are limited to state action as well. And of course, it isn't "censorship" if everyone decides on account of your speech that you suck, and decides further to let you know that's what they think. That is more speech, not censorship, and those who complain of "censorship" in response to harsh criticism are whiny losers. Same thing for not being published in a newspaper. The newspaper has the free speech right to decide what to publish.

That said, there most certainly can be private actions that undermine freedom of speech. For instance, preventing an invited speaker from speaking by means of a heckler's veto is most definitely censorship (to the extent it is successful), and it offends free speech principles even where no state action is involved. Likewise silencing someone through actual or threatened violence.

ETA: Your example of stealing newspapers because you don't like what they printed (or refused to print) is another fine example of private censorship. His actions were without a doubt an attack on your paper's freedom of speech (editorial decision-making).
 
Last edited:
I think that FoS is easier to understand if you take into account location.

You have total FoS in private with people you really know well. You a lesser level in a public space such as a pub or restaurant. There is another level for publications since people who do not want to listen can just not buy the book etc. Twitter and other similar internet services have a different level again as your message can be easily found by complete strangers. Open meetings have a different level to ones by invite only.

Then you need to take into account who is saying it and why. So comedians to paying audiences can pretty much say anything they want. But people who are out to cause trouble and create hatred are legitimate targets to be told to shut up.

Make those applications and freedom of speech is clearly also based on common sense.
 
An example of an abusive government reaction to free speech.

"After a Facebook friend with whom he played video games described him as “crazy” and “messed up in the head,” Carter replied — sarcastically, one imagines — “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.” He added “lol” and “jk” for good measure. For this he was arrested by Austin police, charged with making a “terroristic threat,” and thrown into prison. He may languish there until the start of the next decade."
 
zeggman said:
An example of an abusive government reaction to free speech.

"After a Facebook friend with whom he played video games described him as “crazy” and “messed up in the head,” Carter replied — sarcastically, one imagines — “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.” He added “lol” and “jk” for good measure. For this he was arrested by Austin police, charged with making a “terroristic threat,” and thrown into prison. He may languish there until the start of the next decade."
Click to expand...

And the kid has been beaten up several times in jail awaiting trial. What a travesty. Taken in context, what the kid said is clearly not a "true threat," as defined by the Supreme Court. The prosecutor who decided to press these charges rather than dismissing the case ("For the children!!!"TM, no doubt) should be summarily executed and buried in a shallow grave (not necessarily in that order). And if you press me, I might tell you how I really feel.

As for the person who called the police, I would be in favor of some sort of reprisal, except that the fear such a sniveling coward must experience just getting out of bed in the morning is probably punishment enough.
 
Freddy said:
And the kid has been beaten up several times in jail awaiting trial. What a travesty. Taken in context, what the kid said is clearly not a "true threat," as defined by the Supreme Court. The prosecutor who decided to press these charges rather than dismissing the case ("For the children!!!"TM, no doubt) should be summarily executed and buried in a shallow grave (not necessarily in that order). And if you press me, I might tell you how I really feel.

As for the person who called the police, I would be in favor of some sort of reprisal, except that the fear such a sniveling coward must experience just getting out of bed in the morning is probably punishment enough.
Click to expand...

It's pretty unbelievable. I'm kind of shaken up about it, actually, because it seems so far beyond the pale. I would never have thought the guy could have been in jail for the last 5 months without someone in authority having the sanity to speak up and say, "what the hell do you guys think you're doing?" I don't understand why it just seems to be hitting the news now, after all this time, either.
 
zeggman said:
An example of an abusive government reaction to free speech.

"After a Facebook friend with whom he played video games described him as “crazy” and “messed up in the head,” Carter replied — sarcastically, one imagines — “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.” He added “lol” and “jk” for good measure. For this he was arrested by Austin police, charged with making a “terroristic threat,” and thrown into prison. He may languish there until the start of the next decade."
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link, I didn't realize there was a petition and fund.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom