Free speech and its limits

[Rapier]

An old, cliche'd theme, to be sure, where no conclusion is ever reached and all arguments seem very questionable (putting "limit" and "free speech" on the same sentence itself seems absurd). If anyone has an input about how much limit free speech should have and what kind of limit there must be, feel free to share.

I've read this article before posting, and its conclusion seems reasonable. The subjectivity and arbitrarious judgments toward what kind of speech should be allowed or not is detrimental to the development of ideas and debate. It's even worse when coercion is involved, which often seems to be the case, either by State law or otherwise.

I do not think there is a way to answer how limited free speech should be, but I also object to the notion that free speech should be unlimited. It is not because we can't exactly point what lies between the extremes that the notion of hate speech and such should be disregarded. We may not be able to draw a line where it is not acceptable anymore, but we can surely recognize the extremes. Although judgments about the middle of the extremes are questionable, our own common sense intuitions are sufficient for pointing out toward the extremes and judging them. I also believe speeches should be censored based on its capacity of inciting harm. Anything else should be beyond the law's protection and up to moral/social reprovation and backlash.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Rapier

[Water Mage]

It's a complicated subject.

We want people to able to speak what they want, but sometimes, what they want to speak is something that should not be spoken.

Perhaps what we need is free speech but with limitations...

But can it be called free speech, if it already has limitations?

And there's the fact that people are so easily offended these days...

Edited June 5, 2016 by Water Mage

[Rapier]

Well, free is a concept that does not need to be absolute. After all, absolute freedom doesn't exist (and humans can't be completely free), but there is a degree of desirable freedom that individuals strive for.

It is because of the arbitrary, vague nature of "offensive" speech that I question how valid it is to judge something merely basing off its "offensive" nature. I know something is not false merely because it is vague, but backing up arbitrary judgments about vague concepts with coercion is a dangerous thing for any law code to conceive. Politeness is a virtue, but it is not reasonable to punish someone merely for saying something offensive or that someone doesn't like.

Again, I think the law should act only against actions with some degree of relevant injury (so, no "they hurt my feelings"). For example, while it is perfectly morally and socially reprovable to post something like "I'd wish [X group] were dead", as there is no injuriousness within this sentence, its author should not be censored for it. Compare with "Let's kill [X group]", which is a clear threat.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Rapier

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

And there's the fact that people are so easily offended these days...

which leads us to another question of "how did we get to the point where safe spaces and echo chambers existed?"

which is something i can not answer because i have never experienced one, but i know they do exist from reports I have heard and videos that i've seen.

but i think the conditioning of people these days being so offended at everything (call me a fag, i really won't care but one of my non fag family members might get offended) is a big reason behind it.

Lets not forget "James Rolfe refuses to watch movie because he doesn't think he'll like it" and all the internet explosion that happen from that, granted the people that overreacted looked awful when the guy ignored all the posts and comments insulting him.

which we just might need more of that around, thicker skin and not caring too much about what strangers think of you.

[Rezzy]

I feel that the only thing that should be limited speech wise is inciting people to do something illegal. Anything short of that should be protected by free speech. People have the right to be a bigot if they want to. I value the free exchange of ideas far more than the institutionalization of walking on egg shells to protect the increasingly easily offended populace.

Besides, I want to know who hates me. I don't like how someone who hates me for kissing a woman in public is somehow worse than someone who hates me for being a ginger.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Rezzy

[Water Mage]

Well, free is a concept that does not need to be absolute. After all, absolute freedom doesn't exist (and humans can't be completely free), but there is a degree of desirable freedom that individuals strive for.

It is because of the arbitrary, vague nature of "offensive" speech that I question how valid it is to judge something merely basing off its "offensive" nature. I know something is not false merely because it is vague, but backing up arbitrary judgments about vague concepts is a dangerous thing for any law code to conceive. Politeness is a virtue, but it is not reasonable to punish someone merely for saying something offensive or that someone doesn't like. Again, I think the law should act only against actions with some degree of relevant injury (so, no "they hurt my feelings"). For example, while it is perfectly morally and socially reprovable to post something like "I'd wish [X group] were dead", as there is no injuriousness within this sentence, its author should not be censored for it. Compare with "Let's kill [X group]", which is a clear threat.

Problem is, people interpret things in their own way.

No matter how controlled your speech is, it's still possible that it will offend someone.

And who the law favor depends on a lot things. And don't forget double standards.

For example, Minorities can critize majorities without problems, but majorities can't critize minorities without having a high chance of offending someone the law will favor.

[Rezzy]

I don't believe being offended is ever a valid reason for government action.

[Water Mage]

I don't believe being offended is ever a valid reason for government action.

I don't believe that it is a valid reason either, but tell that the masses.

Take the recent X-Men movie poster, for example.

It was called offensive to women because Apocalypse was holding Mystique by the neck.

[Rapier]

I feel that the only thing that should be limited speech wise is inciting people to do something illegal. Anything short of that should be protected by free speech. People have the right to be a bigot if they want to. I value the free exchange of ideas far more than the institutionalization of walking on egg shells to protect the increasingly easily offended populace.

Besides, I want to know who hates me. I don't like how someone who hates me for kissing a woman in public is somehow worse than someone who hates me for being a ginger.

imo the problem with bigots is not being a bigot (that is a purely moral issue), but saying crap that is harmful to others

for example, it is normal to dislike someone for a random attribute that they have (because of personal taste and its subjective, uncontrollable nature), but it shouldn't be acceptable for that person to speak crap about them (like calling homossexuals abominations, which is not just an offense but also an injurious painting of the LGBT community's image that reaches defamation territory) or promote any action of that kind.

also how can someone talk bad things about others because they have ginger hair? Those are pretty.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Rapier

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Problem is, people interpret things in their own way.

No matter how controlled your speech is, it's still possible that it will offend someone.

And who the law favor depends on a lot things. And don't forget double standards.

For example, Minorities can critize majorities without problems, but majorities can't critize minorities without having a high chance of offending someone the law will favor.

thats another thing i wanna talk about, what makes a majority and minority, exactly what they are?

More so, can Majoritys and Minoritys definitions change? like what if germans became a minority in their own nation due to refugee's?

would it be okay for the now minority of germans to do shit and get away with it like the refugee's have, or would it still not be allowed because "they are evil white men" which follows more under racism then any definition of minority/majority, which i think is where a lot of people confuse the definitions.

I don't believe that it is a valid reason either, but tell that the masses.

Take the recent X-Men movie poster, for example.

It was called offensive to women because Apocalypse was holding Mystique by the neck.

then we have this issue.

"there aren't enough females in media, we want more"

"but we don't want them to be treated equally, they must never be shown to be weak or flawed"

i really don't understand what these people want, other then "girl power, #killallmen"

[eclipse]

i really don't understand what these people want, other then "girl power, #killallmen"

There's several shades you somehow missed in between "background character" and "goddess". Like "someone whose purpose isn't to be a nice pair of tits" or "if we slapped these traits on a character, and gave it to a thousand random people to guess that character's gender, it wouldn't be an overwhelming majority one way or the other".

---

I believe in the freedom of expression, as long as it isn't used to hurt others (inciting riots, death threats, intentionally fucking with their psyche, etc.). I also believe that free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of one's speech. If I directly insult Rapier as a person on this forum (sorry dude, I needed an example), I should not complain about the subsequent flaming warning, because that's what the Code of Conduct says. If I make a bunch of negative blanket statements regarding some group or other (like what I quoted above), I shouldn't be horribly surprised and offended when other people tell me off.

[Water Mage]

thats another thing i wanna talk about, what makes a majority and minority, exactly what they are?

More so, can Majoritys and Minoritys definitions change? like what if germans became a minority in their own nation due to refugee's?

would it be okay for the now minority of germans to do shit and get away with it like the refugee's have, or would it still not be allowed because "they are evil white men" which follows more under racism then any definition of minority/majority, which i think is where a lot of people confuse the definitions.

then we have this issue.

"there aren't enough females in media, we want more"

"but we don't want them to be treated equally, they must never be shown to be weak or flawed"

i really don't understand what these people want, other then "girl power, #killallmen"

There's were the issue of free speech is.

People these days, are so eager to show others that they are benevolent, generous and tolerant, that they will immediately side with the minorities.

After all, tbose who stand up for the minorities will always appear benevolent, generous and tolerant in the eyes of the masses, and if anyone comes, critizing the minority they are defending, they will try their hardest to shut up the one whi critized, otherwise, that "benevolent" image they cultivated will be at risk.

Which in turn, hurts free speech, even the limited kind.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Water Mage

[Rezzy]

imo the problem with bigots is not being a bigot (that is a purely moral issue), but saying crap that is harmful to others

for example, it is normal to dislike someone for a random attribute that they have (because of personal taste and its subjective, uncontrollable nature), but it shouldn't be acceptable for that person to speak crap about them (like calling homossexuals abominations, which is not just an offense but also an injurious painting of the LGBT community's image that reaches defamation territory) or promote any action of that kind.

also how can someone talk bad things about others because they have ginger hair? Those are pretty.

When someone calls me an abomination, it may hurt my feelings, but I do not have a right to not have my feelings hurt. They do have the right to hurt my feelings, as long as they aren't calling on people to beat me up or kill me.

I'll gladly put up with the Westborough Baptist Church, if the alternative is the government fining or jailing people for hurting someone's feelings.

[Water Mage]

When someone calls me an abomination, it may hurt my feelings, but I do not have a right to not have my feelings hurt. They do have the right to hurt my feelings, as long as they aren't calling on people to beat me up or kill me.

I'll gladly put up with the Westborough Baptist Church, if the alternative is the government fining or jailing people for hurting someone's feelings.

What you said reminded me of something a teacher said to me a long time ago:

"Equality is a double-edged blade. If we want those who hates us to accept us, we must also accept those we hate as well. Or at least make an effort. Otherwise, Equality becomes Hipocrisy."

It's something I never forgot.

But anyway, this thread is about free speech, not tolerance, sorry for derailing it.

[Hardin]

I don't believe that it is a valid reason either, but tell that the masses.

Take the recent X-Men movie poster, for example.

It was called offensive to women because Apocalypse was holding Mystique by the neck.

That isn't why the poster was criticized. Nobody is against having women fight in media, the problem was that the poster was entirely without context and showed a woman just being strangled. Those are powerful images that normalize violence against women subconsciously. Can you imagine if a movie used an image of a black man being lynched without context? People would be rightly upset by that imagery.

[Rezzy]

Apocalypse is the villain, so him doing villainous things isn't really saying that it's okay.

When I saw Snidely Whiplash tying women to railroad tracks, it gave me more the idea that he was evil, rather than that Canada condoned that activity.

[Rapier]

I also believe that free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of one's speech. If I directly insult Rapier as a person on this forum (sorry dude, I needed an example), I should not complain about the subsequent flaming warning, because that's what the Code of Conduct says.

I think this is redundant. You're saying it is wrong because it is on the norms, but it does not explain why you should be punished under coercion because of this, or what the rational basis is. I made earlier the distinction between being an ass and being a harmful person whose actions can injury someone. Psychological abuse is one thing, calling someone an idiot is another. On the latter, it is better for the offended to stand for himself and turn the table on the offender through arguments, words and social reprovation, than use coercion merely because of "muh feelings".

or maybe it is because my skin turned into a cactus with a boxing glove like that digimon, who knows

That isn't why the poster was criticized. Nobody is against having women fight in media, the problem was that the poster was entirely without context and showed a woman just being strangled. Those are powerful images that normalize violence against women subconsciously. Can you imagine if a movie used an image of a black man being lynched without context? People would be rightly upset by that imagery.

I knew nothing about the movie, and I could make the deduction that it was some evil guy who looks like Ganondorf holding Mystique by the throat because villains do that.

Those things are expected on fiction. It's like I see a poster with a dragon burning villages and someone argues it is promoting genocide. About the example of lynching a black person, I don't see the congruence between both cases.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Rapier

[Hardin]

I knew nothing about the movie, and I could make the deduction that it was some evil guy who looks like Ganondorf holding Mystique by the throat because villains do that.

Those things are expected on fiction. It's like I see a poster with a dragon burning villages and someone argues it is promoting genocide. About the example of lynching a black person, I don't see the congruence between both cases.

Violence against women is a very real and serious issue in our society. Using it as an advertisement to sell movie tickets robs it of its gravity and unintentionally desensitizes us to the issue. This is much like how jokes about prison rape have made the issue practically non-existent to mainstream culture. As for the lynching example, again that is about how something that is horrific and part of the real violence against minorities that still occurs today, should not simply be used as a gimmick to sell movie tickets. Women are battered in reality, black people are lynched in reality, dragons do not burn down villages in reality.

[kantoorfarina]

I think it crosses the line when it's at the point where someone or a group of people's words are inspiring people to do acts of violence against other, innocent people but they're allowed to get away with it because they're technically not breaking the law.

Edited June 5, 2016 by kantoorfarina

[blah the Prussian]

The real thing that needs to be focused on is incitement to violence. Incitement to violence for any reason should be illegal, especially if it's against a specific group. Violence, for the record, means to me advocating for physical harm in any way, shape, or form. Another way free speech should be restricted that has been overlooked in this topic so far is government secrets. In WWII, for example, letters would frequently be censored to omit any and all reference to combat ops that would happen in the future. This was absolutely justified to avoid this content falling into the hands of Axis spies. So basically, by definition free speech must not be absolute. So long as we have a clear cut line for what is okay to censor and what isn't, we will not fall down any slippery slope.

Also yeah the outrage against the X-men poster is stupid.

[eclipse]

I think this is redundant. You're saying it is wrong because it is on the norms, but it does not explain why you should be punished under coercion because of this, or what the rational basis is. I made earlier the distinction between being an ass and being a harmful person whose actions can injury someone. Psychological abuse is one thing, calling someone an idiot is another. On the latter, it is better for the offended to stand for himself and turn the table on the offender through arguments, words and social reprovation, than use coercion merely because of "muh feelings".

There's a much more practical reason to this.

In order to have an account on SF, you MUST agree to follow the Code of Conduct. Failure to do so has consequences. In other words, you've agreed to limit your own speech to use this site, and if you choose to disregard that, it won't end well.

[Tryhard]

Freedom of speech prevents the government from incarcerating or censoring but even then there are quite a few exceptions, one obviously being threats. Well, in the US, anyway. That's why they allow the Westboro Baptist Church to continue even though in Europe they would likely be arrested for "inciting hate speech". Private companies tend to be able to deal with such matters in the way they choose.

Still, that doesn't mean that if a company is unfairly censoring users then it can't be pointed out.

That isn't why the poster was criticized. Nobody is against having women fight in media, the problem was that the poster was entirely without context and showed a woman just being strangled. Those are powerful images that normalize violence against women subconsciously. Can you imagine if a movie used an image of a black man being lynched without context? People would be rightly upset by that imagery.

a blue mutant that is female is being strangled by another mutant more akin to a monster then a man that is obviously being portrayed as evil. regardless, i wonder if there are any posters of just violence in general being depicted...

it's not even being encouraged, it's not like the billboard is saying this is okay, it's for dramatic effect with superheroes and supervillains. if it was a male mutant in mystique's place it would suddenly be okay?

you're being ridiculous

Women are battered in reality, black people are lynched in reality, dragons do not burn down villages in reality.

superheroes (especially a shapeshifter like mystique) and villains don't exist in reality

nevermind the fact that you seem to ignore the countless that you've massacred as part of your playing of video games as no big deal. why? because no one (should) give a shit about fictional violence

edit: a thing I forgot is that I find it funny that people say that women should have more prominent action roles (cool stuff) but people then get mad when they are put into dangerous situations or ever get hurt

Edited June 5, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

There's a much more practical reason to this.In order to have an account on SF, you MUST agree to follow the Code of Conduct. Failure to do so has consequences. In other words, you've agreed to limit your own speech to use this site, and if you choose to disregard that, it won't end well.

SF is a private entity. Its owners can decide to ban anyone for whatever reason. Free speech only refers to the State, so your comparison doesn't really work. SF can't arrest you, fine you or charge you with a crime for breaking its rules. It can only ban you from its "property". Being in this "property" isn't a right, but rather a privilegy, therefore a person banned from it isn't having their freedom of speech limited.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Nobody

[Rezzy]

Statistically, men are just as likely to be abused by their female partners as vice versa. Women are just seen as the weaker sex, so people think we need special treatment.

also how can someone talk bad things about others because they have ginger hair? Those are pretty.

Why thank you, there's that rumor going around that gingers don't have souls.

[Rapier]

Violence against women is a very real and serious issue in our society. Using it as an advertisement to sell movie tickets robs it of its gravity and unintentionally desensitizes us to the issue. This is much like how jokes about prison rape have made the issue practically non-existent to mainstream culture. As for the lynching example, again that is about how something that is horrific and part of the real violence against minorities that still occurs today, should not simply be used as a gimmick to sell movie tickets. Women are battered in reality, black people are lynched in reality, dragons do not burn down villages in reality.

It is not just a gratuitous show of violence against women. Anyone who looks at the poster can see it is a movie, that suspension of belief should come first and foremost because what we see is a fantastic depiction. On this particular case, I don't think that argument follows.

SF is a private entity. Its owners can decide to ban anyone for whatever reason. Free speech refers to the State and your comparison doesn't really work.

SF can't arrest you, fine you or charge you with a crime for breaking its rules. It can only ban you from its "property". Being in this "property" isn't a right, but rather a privilegy, therefore a person banned from it isn't having their freedom of speech limited.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Although limiting one's speech because it's your private property and you can be an ass does not save you from being labeled an asshole. I've seen people do it a lot and I've turned the tables on them while they thought they were justified to do whatever they wanted with no reprovation backlash. See, words can be really useful.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Rapier