Talk:Freedom of speech

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon law.svg

This Law related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Does ANYONE actually allege a right not to be offended?[edit]

I get that people being offended at things and railing against them is common. That's a normal part of being offended. But has anyone ever actually asserted a right not to be offended?

Because as far as I can tell, this is some "BOO HOO PC POLICE CRITICIZING ME AND THAT'S SUPRESSING MY FREE SPEECH" nonsense. All the cites here are about people regurgitating the right-wing-talking point, and in no way supporting the "no offensive speech allowed by free speech" straw argument. Help me out here. We got a lawsuit about "invasion of seclusion" as if it were the same thing. Someone support that section, or I'm gonna junk it within the hour. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've only ever seen it invoked as a straw argument by people arguing 'right to speech means right to audience and lack of criticism'. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Some countries do in fact have anti-blasphemy laws that are based on offense. The German law for once only punishes blasphemy that is "designed or able to disturb public peace". Hence the offense machine. Gladly in the US this is but a talking point. Elsewhere being offended is indeed a legal category, I am sad to say... for reference 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
And yet, that's not an assertion of a right not to be offended, but instead a law against disturbing the public peace. Incitation to riot would be a closer paralell and you know it. Not at all a right "not to be offended". Do you get tired of lying to me? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
(EC) That's a completely witless example. Speech 'designed or able to disturb the public peace' is a common standard that is not restricted to blasphemy or even tangentially related to offence (whether it's the right standard is a separate issue). Standing on a soapbox with a lit Molotov cocktail and saying: "Hey lads, lets throw firebombs at the niggers!" is speech not protected in most places. Same goes if you replaced 'niggers' with 'kikes' or 'muzzies'. I imagine that if you whipped out a megaphone in the middle of the Bible Belt and bellowed "Jesus was a gayboy who sucked Peter's dick!", you might find yourself charged with breaching the peace. It's telling that blasphemy is only a crime by that standard when it reaches that level of asshattery. In short, that doesn't seem like a special exception carved out for 'offence', it's making sure a loophole isn't opened up for peace-disturbing speech that happens to be blasphemous. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is patently absurd to define a crime on the reaction it gets. If say I say "Atheists are all immoral bastards who sodomize baby chicken for breakfast" I am unlikely to disturb the public peace, hence I am allowed to say such things. If however I say "Catholics are murderers (Magdeburg 1631) child fuckers and racists (slavery)" I quite potentially "disturb the public peace" as some of the more radical catholics will get annoyed or even violent. Hence there is at least an implicit right to not being offended. Is there an explicit right to privacy in the constitution of the US? No. But most sane people can see it being implied by the fifth and fourteenth amendments. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As a further aside: The law does not outlaw speech that disturbs the public peace per se only speech that insults religious beliefs and thus disturbs the public peace. This is imho a remarkable priority in a law... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC) "It is patently absurd to define a crime on the reaction it gets." Good job no-one's doing that here, then. It's very sensible to define a crime around what the reaction the actor intends to provoke (or should know would be provoked). Otherwise, waving a handgun around outside a school all day long would be A-OK. So would stalking. and SWATting.
As for your aside - are you actually assuming that there's no similar provision anywhere else in German law? Yes, yes you are. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether there is. If it exists, there is probably a written law to that effect as unlike common law, German law has a law for everything and leaves little up for the courts to decide... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a fine word in the German language to describe fuzzy concepts in law like "disturbing public peace" a law that is so vague is called "Gummiparagraph" which could be translated roughly as gummy law. Of course most laws in common law are rather open to interpretation (which leads to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision deciding who is or isn't a person), but in German or French law this cannot be. Laws are supposed to be made by elected representatives of the people, not judges. A law that punishes religious offensiveness that "disturbs the public peace" is so open to interpretation as to mean everything and nothing all at once. And it needlessly shields a powerful institution (the church) from criticism through the people, something that should never happen in a free and open society. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the legal quagmire involved, it does not provide for nor describe a right to not be offended. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Free Speech only applies to people I agree with and does not offend me TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Removed Fred Phelps section[edit]

Because it's not the case that a nation's commitment to free speech could be judged by whether it would let Phelps enter. If Phelps were British the U.S. probably wouldn't let him in. This scholar had no legal recourse, and neither did these guys. Countries can keep out whom they please based on any disapproved viewpoint at all. But the citizens of any particular country may still enjoys robust speech rights, as we Americans pretty much do.---Mona- (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant Ben Garrison cartoon.[edit]

Worth addition? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mUSSA-fD9II/VfOMo2k3osI/AAAAAAAABSc/2aFvoJsh7N8/s1600/andrew_anglin.jpg FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That kicks ass dude. I'll support putting it in. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ACLU stands up for free speech[edit]

It's beautiful to see high democratic ideals upheld peacefully. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

XKCD again[edit]

Can we finally get rid of that stupid (and copyvio, if that makes a difference to you) XKCD cartoon? First Amendment law is increasingly irrelevant to free speech in a world ruled by corporations. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Change the first sentence[edit]

To add the bolded text

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate with any other person, or persons, without fear of unwarranted restriction, censorship, or organized reprisal from a government.

This is okay, right?—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that is quite wrong. Freedom of speech is a far broader topic than First Amendment or similar laws. In all seriousness, I've done my best to move the page away from the POV that only government can threaten your free speech, and specifically that censorship by the businesses that own the most important public forum of the age is not a Constitutional matter but nevertheless is a threat to freedom of speech. I understand the appeal of the 'only government' argument to apologists for 'no platforming', the heckler's veto, and similar forms of bullying, but I don't think we should endorse them. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Misconceptions on the first amendmentA[edit]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/

This article also goes into the "fire in the theater" trope too. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"Voltaire" quote[edit]

The quote from Voltaire is not actually from Voltaire. This doesn't mean the quote is not valuable (I think it is), but it is misattributed. Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#1900s EDIT: Indeed, even the referenced source specifies it. But, written like that, it does look like it is from Voltaire. --5.89.207.74 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)