Define *Free Speech* if you can...

POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Friday, February 20, 2026 19:33
VIEWED: 5360
PAGE 1 of 7

"Free Speech" - what does it mean to you?

What are the limits - any? Is hate speech protected under the umbrella of Free Speech? How about speech designed to insight violence, cause harm? Can a group/society set up boundaries and be trusted to know what those are? Do we really have free speech in ANY country?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Free Speech is hard to define... I'd say its permitting speech even if it's offensive, so long as there's no threat of damage or harm in it, which is difficult to judge and can only be determined on a case by case basis.

Of course, the person who is offensive can, of course, be called on it or insulted by those who are offended, which is also protected by free speech. They can even ask the other person to shut up, as many of us would in real life, without it being censorship, assuming the offended doesn't have any influence by which to pressure the person in question to shut up.

For that reason, no one here on this board has yet violated free speech one way or the other. Being that we're all anonymous, it's impossible for someone to threaten someone else (without it being hilarious as opposed to serious), and none of us can censor or ban anyone. Or even really get anyone banned or be accused of banning anyone, because we don't have any moderators who could enforce that.

Quote:

---

Is hate speech protected under the umbrella of Free Speech? How about speech designed to insight violence, cause harm? Can a group/society set up boundaries and be trusted to know what those are? Do we really have free speech in ANY country?

---

1) Yes, unless it falls under fighting words.

2) That would be the DEFINITION of fighting words.

3) Not sure what you mean. I'd say within a group or microcosm of culture that this already happens. It's when someone comes from outside the microcosm that offense may be given or established unspoken rules not understood.

Do we want to prevent people from being lynched over differences? Of course. But we can't make people treat each other fair and we can't make people like each other. All a society can do is to try to encourage positive, diverse interaction, and eventually the negative stereotypes and feelings should go away on their own. Let's look at Affirmative Action: I actually like Affirmative Action, I think it's sped up this process, and I don't yet think it's finished repairing the damage it was set forth to address. The problem is, we're MAKING people treat each other fairly, which only increases their resentment of each other. It's a significant flaw that could and DOES increase violence against the groups it's designed to help.

So, do I think we should legislate boundaries on what people can and can't say? No, because I think it's counter-productive, and gets awfully close to thought crime.

4) Probably not, but it's something we should endeavor for.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

What are the limits - any?

---

For the most part, far as I am concerned ?
None.

I've seen only one case in which I might take issue, and that would be airing a political documentary as an in-flight movie, since the audience is not exactly free to get up and leave.

But as a rule, I figure you can SAY anything, it's what you DO that counts - hate, racism, gender bashing, what have you, those are for the most part words, stupid words - but ones that can also be countered by hopeful words.

It crosses the line to DO - when you do it to a "captive" audience, your wife, your child, your students, when your intended recipient is not free to leave your company so they don't have to listen to you, or when you violate someones privacy by giving details WHILE issuing threats or exhorting violence, cause that is an ACT.

The tricky part is where the line between speech and intentional psychological manipulation is, and that's a topic imma hold comment on, for less than noble reasons.

But so long as the line between sayin and doin ain't crossed, meh, say what you like - but some folks (not talkin bout you, Pizman) should remember that when that torrent of hate, fear and malice comes flying out of their mouth, so too does every mental weakness they ever had, complete with little hints as to how to exploit them effectively.

-Frem
There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

How do we define the "speech" in "Free Speech" in the first place - vocal expression? Text? Art?

Frem - ok then if someone expresses vulgar thoughts to children?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Under kosher hatespeech/hatecrime laws in UK and Canada, reading from the Bible sends preachers directly to jail.

Obama just signed that into law for USA, although children in USA were arrested before Obama and facing life in prison for reading from the Bible, thanks to dik-sucking pedophile rabbis.

Pedophilia is required for the kosher religion, and is now legal thanks to hatecrime laws.

Legal Maxim: Those who fail to assert their rights, have none.

All the free speech laws in the world mean nothing for folks too skeert to speak.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

If by vulgar you mean just cussing around them, I've done that. They're damn good at video games nowadays... >_>

If you mean someone saying sexually explicit stuff to children, that's all kinds of creepy. But I'm with Frem, unless they begin to try to ACT on what they're saying, it's offensive, but not really a criminal offense.

You'd hope that there would be some responsible adults around watching out for the kids, and that they'd tell the offender off or alert their neighborhood watch if they think the guy's really suspicious. Which, BTW, if the watch is actually organized, it's a great deterrent against ALL crime.

Quote:

---

How do we define the "speech" in "Free Speech" in the first place - vocal expression? Text? Art?

---

All three, as well as movies, play-acting/theatre, television, and software programming. I note, however, that if any non-verbal media confess to or record actual crimes, then it's not so much the jurisdiction of free speech as it is evidence.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Under kosher hatespeech/hatecrime laws in UK and Canada, reading from the Bible sends preachers directly to jail.

Obama just signed that into law for USA, although children in USA were arrested before Obama and facing life in prison for reading from the Bible, thanks to dik-sucking pedophile rabbis.

Pedophilia is required for the kosher religion, and is now legal thanks to hatecrime laws.

Legal Maxim: Those who fail to assert their rights, have none.

All the free speech laws in the world mean nothing for folks too skeert to speak.

---

Pizmo: See above.

THAT is "free speech". It's wrong, it's offensive, it's vulgar (there ARE children who come here), it contains not one single iota of fact or truth to it...

But it's allowed.

How do you deal with it? How do you combat it? By banning? Jailing? Killing?

Nope. You point out the errors, and you mock incessantly. You combat offensive free speech with TRUTH.

Is Rush Limbaugh an asshole and a fascist? Yup. GlenBeck? Ditto. But I wouldn't censor them. Better just to mock them or ignore them, call them on their bullshit and point out their hypocrisy. PN is no different - it's just that his audience is smaller. Same brand of batshit, smaller storefront that he's selling it from.


Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME