Talk:Freedom of speech

	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.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Change the first sentence

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)))  (talk • stalk) 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

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, LeftyGreenMario! 23:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"Voltaire" quote

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)

Hate speech should never be protected speech.

We need to end hate speech, while also expanding protected group status to include things such as self-expression through appearance, for instance, because that is an extension of one's identity and lifestyle. For instance, certain parts of the UK made abuse against Goths a hate crime, and I agree with this legislation.

I want to end personal criticism and attacks against individuals, Therefore, I am in favor of strong anti-bullying and anti-harassment laws. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:98a:400:8910:28:76a0:a5f6:59d0 / talk / contribs}

I would be fine with that if the definition is narrowed to things most people are hate speech (such as "Trans people are all insane criminals who should be put in mental hospitals"). However, things that are more contentious and that a lot of people do not agree is hate speech (such as "there are only two genders", or that "trans women are actually men") should not be banned, because that would be one half of the population imposing their worldview on the other half. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.81.153.166 / talk}

What 'halves' of the population are you referring to? People's opinion of gender do not fall squarely upon political lines, if that's what you're saying. FairDinkum (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Believe it or not, dogwhistles exist. We do not live in a vacuum, and neither does our language. Words have power. "Trans women are actually men" clearly devalues the lived experience of trans women, and implies that trans women are delusional. It's a skip, a jump, and a hop from this to "trans women are sexual predators disguising themselves as women to prey on women and girls" which is obvious hate speech (and contributes to violence against trans people). ^{— Unsigned, by: Vee / talk / contribs}

Idk but this BoN earlier having an issue with my including trans men and nonbinary people with uteruses makes me doubt they're asking about trans people in good faith. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Who decides what speech is harmful and needs to be banned?

I mean, should that be decided from the top down, or from the bottom up? The problem with a top down approach is that often the people who would control speech are not trusted. But the problem with a bottom up approach is that that would be difficult to implement. So what is the solution? ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.81.153.166 / talk}

What particular edits are you suggesting be done? Regarding your question, I believe we should emulate the Soviet Constitution of 1936 for the solution in this case, namely article 125. Wisconcom (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think what's more appropriate is the paradox of tolerance. If rhetoric incites intolerance and all that entails, that is obviously harmful speech that needs to be pruned in order to maintain a healthy ecology. Intolerance is not constructive, it is destructive. Words have power. Vee (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)