Talk:Freedom of speech
This article needs more Ames--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:31, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
Contents |
[edit] Curious question
Why is Freedom of Speech often interpreted to mean "I have the right to be heard and you must listen?"
I often think of this is relation to telemarketers and do-not-call lists. No one is telling them they can't say what they want. They can pitch their whatever to the dial-tone until their blue in the face. No one is stopping them.
Maybe Pal was right all the way back in July. This article needs more Caius. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 14:50, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Title
"Speech" should not be capped... ħuman
18:09, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
- Ten months later I fixes it... ħuman
07:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] US Centric
Do we have template? This article is terribly US-centric. There's a section on US interpretation, then the next section is all about US law.
Surely some of our UK (at the very least) brothers and sisters can add some commentary here? ħuman
03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clear and Present Danger
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the clear and present danger test was changed to the imminent lawless action test. — Unsigned, by: 173.87.102.102 / talk / contribs
- The BoN is correct.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is the BoN? — Unsigned, by: 173.87.102.102 / talk / contribs
[edit] "Legal" means?
From the article:
- Freedom of speech is the concept that any person can communicate with any other person, or persons, via any legal means, without fear of legal repercussions or censorship.
What exactly is "via any legal means" means? the problem I am having is that should the state be able to restrict the "means" (by defining which of the means are legal) without limiting the freedom? K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest just cutting the "via any legal means" bit, as it really isn't clear what it means. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- It does matter, we should just be writing it more clearly. Freedom of speech requires that you follow certain legal protocals. You cannot legally converse with any 6 year old, you cannot legally use the telephone at 10 pm if you are a solicitor, etc.
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- It does matter, we should just be writing it more clearly. Freedom of speech requires that you follow certain legal protocals. You cannot legally converse with any 6 year old, you cannot legally use the telephone at 10 pm if you are a solicitor, etc.
[edit] Freedom from speech?
If freedom from religion is an essential part of freedom of religion, should "freedom from speech" be a part of freedom of speech? K61824What is going on? 13:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Word games. Please reason more carefully in the future. Anyway, the right not to say something is certainly a part of free speech (e.g. denying an interview or answering "no comment" to a question). Something that could be described as "freedom from speech" usually comes under wp:freedom of association - you are not obliged to listen to anyone. (That was an over-generalization, but you get the gist.)--ZooGuard (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am referring to thing that relates to Miranda warning and pleading the fifth. If right not to say something is part of freedom of speech, then why would you need those as separate rights? K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 14:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Fifth Amendment refers to rights a person has in a criminal investigation and trial, including the right not to say things which may incriminate him/herself. Arguably this may belongs under the wider rubric of freedom to speak, but it's not really the same issue as the freedom of speech referred to in the First Amendment (i.e. the freedom to express opinions, criticise the government, etc). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- (EC)Possibly due to ambiguity in your original soundbite. There's a difference between being free to not speak, and being free to avoid ever having to listen to something under any circumstances. The former is implicitly assumed in "freedom of speech" anyway, while the latter isn't consistent with the original freedom of religion analogy because "freedom from religion" is about not having it forced on you, and so your freedom of worship (or non-worship) practices are unaffected. It says nothing about you never having to see religion in public, only that you can't be adversely affected by it against your will.
Don't click here 14:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- (EC)Possibly due to ambiguity in your original soundbite. There's a difference between being free to not speak, and being free to avoid ever having to listen to something under any circumstances. The former is implicitly assumed in "freedom of speech" anyway, while the latter isn't consistent with the original freedom of religion analogy because "freedom from religion" is about not having it forced on you, and so your freedom of worship (or non-worship) practices are unaffected. It says nothing about you never having to see religion in public, only that you can't be adversely affected by it against your will.
- The Fifth Amendment refers to rights a person has in a criminal investigation and trial, including the right not to say things which may incriminate him/herself. Arguably this may belongs under the wider rubric of freedom to speak, but it's not really the same issue as the freedom of speech referred to in the First Amendment (i.e. the freedom to express opinions, criticise the government, etc). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- I am referring to thing that relates to Miranda warning and pleading the fifth. If right not to say something is part of freedom of speech, then why would you need those as separate rights? K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 14:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- When I heard "freedom from speech" I thought of the freedom not to have to listen to people who want you to hear what they have to say. Just as you own your mouth (and therefore shouldn't be forced to say what you don't want to say; that would be slavery), you own your ears and have a right not to have them invaded with sound waves without your consent. Or at least, that's the ideal we should strive for. Oxygen of publicity (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)