Freedom of speech is you defending someone else’s right to say things you don’t agree with. Regardless of what they say.

It’s really that simple. You can be angry with them, you can be disgusted by them. That’s your right, and if you’re a properly function adult you’ll either air a counter opinion, or walk away from them.

You can say you find it offensive, but that is subjective and therefore has little value.

But you cannot silence or sensor them, otherwise you do not support freedom of speech.

It doesn’t matter if you’re left or right, godly or godless - them’s the rules. And there’s no agenda so divine to be above this.

Now, who’s for a drink?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

wishforthenight · M

Them's the rules

Yes, but if some forms of "free speech" are illegal, such as hate speech, then you can indeed silence or censor them.

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight Hate speech is a subjective term so it’s always going to be a shaky law to enforce. I expect the law will move around depending on which government sits at the time.

wishforthenight · M

@AdmiralPrune I'm sure. But the fact remains that some forms of "free speech" can be censored by law.

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight For now. But that isn’t free speech. Hate speech laws here in the UK are currently under public pressure to be reviewed. Atleast one party will make a promise to repeal them to gain votes. Likely two.

wishforthenight · M

@AdmiralPrune I'm sure they will. And that's a real problem. It seems like a lot of people are desperate to be able to racially abuse whoever they please, with no fear of consequences. Otherwise, why on earth would they want a review (I also see no evidence of this, btw)

basilfawlty89 · 36-40, M

@wishforthenight @AdmiralPrune
Would likely depend on the content of it.
Hate speech is abhorrent but likely won't be prosecuteable. However, if it's incitement to violence, it is. And incitement to violence isn't considered protected speech and nevee has been as it violates the social contract.

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight The thing of it is, is that the concept of hate speech is at odds with free speech.

People should be allowed to say whatever they wish. Of course they can then be judged or ridiculed for what they say as society reaction, but the law should not be involved.

In most cases if you try to ban something, you make it interesting and desirable. You give a group a lost cause or perceived injustice to fight for.

wishforthenight · M

@AdmiralPrune I don't agree. Unrestricted speech is all very well, but it ignores the harm hate speech causes. Society’s reaction isn’t always enough. Laws are necessary to protect vulnerable groups from real-world harm, not just judgment or ridicule.

MoveAlong · 70-79, M

@wishforthenight Hate speech in the US is not illegal. It can become illegal if it falls into narrow, unprotected categories like inciting violence, making true threats, or defamation.

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight Well that’s your prerogative. But that’s not freedom of speech. And that’s my point.

wishforthenight · M

@AdmiralPrune You're right, we disagree on what freedom of speech should protect. I believe that it ends where it causes real harm.

Defending racist speech under the banner of "free speech" often says more about the speaker than the principle...

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight Possibly. Often it depends on the position or the race of the person being racist.

wishforthenight · M

@AdmiralPrune Aha, there's a red flag; it sounds like you're trying to relativise racism or suggest it's somehow acceptable depending on who says it. That, my friend, is a common rhetorical move used to deflect from addressing actual racist behavior.

Racism is wrong no matter who it's coming from. Trying to excuse it based on someone's race or position only reinforces inequality, not fairness. If we justify hate selectively, we’re not actually defending free speech, we're enabling harm.

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight I agree racism from any source is wrong. What I said was that it’s been noted that there’s more tolerance of it when it comes from some people than there is from others.

That’s another good reason for complete freedom of speech. No one group or political identity can claim to be a victim.

wishforthenight · M

@AdmiralPrune Dude, you're claiming inconsistent enforcement as justification for no enforcement at all. That's like saying, “Because some people get away with it, everyone should be allowed to do it.” That’s a false equivalence and a way to avoid addressing the core harm caused by hate speech.

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight I’ve made a post supporting free speech.

And here you are wiggling any which way you can to tell me I’m bad for it.

Hate speech is subjective - if you had your way stand up comedy would go the way of the dodo.

I’m sure that in order to make up for a lack of real life achievements, you’ve appointed yourself chat prefect and champion of the people.

But it’s all in your head.

I’ll focus on all the good people of SW who have taken this post for the good common sense it is. And move you into the padded wall suite where you belong.

This message was deleted by the author of the main post.

AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M

@wishforthenight That’s a lot you wrote there. I might show you the evils of censorship by deleting it without reading it.

Thusly.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment