Free Speech

[Danoff]

Freedom of Speech is there to protect you from legal consequences for whatever you say. I don't support anyone who tries to take legal action over what someone says.

Well if it conflicts with another law, I guess Freedom of Speech shouldn't protect you.

...that's why you got that response.

 

[Com Fox]

and I know it wasn't exactly my most smartest comments, so I guess it was deserved

 

[BobK]

Well if it conflicts with another law, I guess Freedom of Speech shouldn't protect you.

What if the law in question forbids criticism of the current government or the people in it?

 

[Com Fox]

What if the law in question forbids criticism of the current government or the people in it?

Ok maybe I have to rephrase it all because at the moment I'm making to many illogical statements that I really regret.

I support free speech in most matters but in the case of spreading lies, copyright, social consequences. Free Speech shouldn't protect you.

Is there anything I missed to make it illogical

 

[BobK]

Ok maybe I have to rephrase it all because at the moment I'm making to many illogical statements that I really regret.

I support free speech in most matters but in the case of spreading lies, copyright, social consequences. Free Speech shouldn't protect you.

Is there anything I missed to make it illogical

I think that covers it! 👍

 

[polysmut]

What if the law in question forbids criticism of the current government or the people in it?

Then you don't have freedom of speech.

 

[Scaff]

On a related note, the Donald is tweeting again, suggesting the US needs stronger libel laws because the press say bad things about him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-us-president-white-house-press-a7658406.html

 

[UKMikey]

On a related note, the Donald is tweeting again, suggesting the US needs stronger libel laws because the press say bad things about him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-us-president-white-house-press-a7658406.html

Can't wait to see what Private Eye will make of this. Libel abusers are their biggest bugbear.

 

[mistersafeway]

Can't wait to see what Private Eye will make of this. Libel abusers are their biggest bugbear.

Trump already is one, what with suing Bill Maher for a joke and The Onion for a satirical article. I also heard about somebody claiming he wasn't a billionaire and getting sued over that. Trump lost all of those cases, and he hates losing. Shame for him he's such a loser.

 

[UKMikey]

Another Trump story (sorry): Federal judge rules that "knock the crap out of them" isn't covered by the freedom-of-speech defence if you're accused of inciting your followers to rough people up.

 

[DK]

I wonder if he'll lash out via Twitter at this judge too.

 

[urmie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...vows-tackle-concerns-blasphemous-content.html

Is this free speech? Who determines what is "blasphemous" and what isn't?

 

[Spurgy 777]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...vows-tackle-concerns-blasphemous-content.html

Is this free speech? Who determines what is "blasphemous" and what isn't?

Nope and the government apparently.

 

[Famine]

Is this free speech?

Facebook is a private company so freedom of expression does not apply.

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...vows-tackle-concerns-blasphemous-content.html

Is this free speech? Who determines what is "blasphemous" and what isn't?

The final speaker. If you tell me to say "kill all the Jews!" and I refuse I'm using my will and my own freedom of speech which includes the right to not speak. That doesn't impinge on your own freedom of speech. The same is true for companies/publications/forums et al that are the final publisher of user comments.

 

[LeMansAid]

Facebook is being strong-armed. If the person in charge at Facebook wants to speak everything (or everything that falls within their tolerance) that their users speak, and the Pakistan government is in the process of making that impossible, wouldn't that be a free speech issue?

 

[Famine]

Facebook is being strong-armed. If the person in charge at Facebook wants to speak everything (or everything that falls within their tolerance) that their users speak, and the Pakistan government is in the process of making that impossible, wouldn't that be a free speech issue?

Yes and no. Pakistan's government doesn't recognise free speech, but Zuckerberg isn't a Pakistani citizen and doesn't live there, so isn't subject to its laws. If his company wants to operate there, it is - but it's by choice and not force and so choosing to forego that right.

 

[UKMikey]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/22-companies-pull-advertising-oreilly-factor/story?id=46579346

More corporate censorship. It's a conspiracy! (I'm being sarcastic.)

 

[stonesfan129]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/22-companies-pull-advertising-oreilly-factor/story?id=46579346

More corporate censorship. It's a conspiracy! (I'm being sarcastic.)

Sadly, some probably do think it is censorship. I'm "conservative" and watch Fox and some of these other things. But the advertisers are private companies who can use their private property how they want to. I mean, if they don't agree with what he says, they don't have to advertise it. I'm sure O'Reilly doesn't care, probably has plenty saved away for retirement.

 

[HHHeisenberg]

Just a funny article for you, guys)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...d-hospital-nine-months-day-since-win-england/

 

[UKMikey]

Just a funny article for you, guys)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...d-hospital-nine-months-day-since-win-england/

It's a funny story but I'm not sure where the free speech part comes in? Unless it's about the right of Cristiano Ronaldo to make an asshole of himself, maybe.

 

[HHHeisenberg]

Sorry, I just wanted to share that

 

[UKMikey]

Sorry, I just wanted to share that

I'm not intending to limit your free speech in any way but you may get some more useful responses if you post it on the Funny News thread.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/funny-strange-news-stories.90735/unread

 

[HHHeisenberg]

sure, thanks

 

[stonesfan129]

I find it hypocritical how some advocate free speech, but then want to censor any viewpoints they disagree with. Look at Milo Yionnapolous (err whatever his name is). He wanted to come speak at UC-Berkely, but then all these people don't want him there because they think he's just there to push hate speech. If you agree with free speech, then don't you think everybody deserves the opportunity to share their opinion?

 

[Dotini]

I find it hypocritical how some advocate free speech, but then want to censor any viewpoints they disagree with. Look at Milo Yionnapolous (err whatever his name is). He wanted to come speak at UC-Berkely, but then all these people don't want him there because they think he's just there to push hate speech. If you agree with free speech, then don't you think everybody deserves the opportunity to share their opinion?

I'll bet the administrators there are scared spitless of fire and blood if conservatives are allowed to speak, and having federal funds cut off if they don't. I favor the Solomonic solution; burn down half the campus, and cut off federal funding to the other half.

 

[stonesfan129]

I'll bet the administrators there are scared spitless of fire and blood if conservatives are allowed to speak, and having federal funds cut off if they don't.

Does that not show the hypocrisy though? Many of these places claim to be platforms for free speech but when somebody comes around whose opinions they don't like, they want to block them from speaking.

 

[Dotini]

Does that not show the hypocrisy though? Many of these places claim to be platforms for free speech but when somebody comes around whose opinions they don't like, they want to block them from speaking.

Seriously, it would be irresponsible to allow someone to cry fire in a crowded theater, or to otherwise knowingly allow serious violence to occur.

 

[stonesfan129]

Seriously, it would be irresponsible to allow someone to cry fire in a crowded theater, or to otherwise knowingly allow serious violence to occur.

So free speech should be restricted because somebody might be offended by it? Is the cornerstone of the first amendment's protection of free speech, not to protect unpopular political opinions?

 

[Carbonox]

I find it hypocritical how some advocate free speech, but then want to censor any viewpoints they disagree with. Look at Milo Yionnapolous (err whatever his name is). He wanted to come speak at UC-Berkely, but then all these people don't want him there because they think he's just there to push hate speech. If you agree with free speech, then don't you think everybody deserves the opportunity to share their opinion?

I don't think Antifa have ever advocated for free speech, TBH. They're more fascist than they realize.