Freedom of Speech

angatar_ · 2013-10-07T01:52:21+00:00

Something I've mentioned before but haven't mentioned today is that freedom of speech is political; it applies to governments. Private organization like reddit and the moderators of subreddits have the right to censor anything or anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Governments should not be given that power because they have far more power than something like reddit ever will. That distinction is important to me, and probably clarifies my position a bit more.

Also, you might want to clarify more how this relates to The Red Pill/Blue Pill divide.

SongTamRiver · 2013-10-08T03:57:19+00:00

Disclaimer: I can only claim familiarity with American free speech jurisprudence.

Speech/expression that can be regulated by the government, in broad categories (according to SCOTUS):

obscenity
defamation
fighting words/incitement
commercial speech

So yes, it's justifiable for the government to place limits on speech.

Another thing to keep in mind is that speech can be limited by time/place/manner restrictions, and constitutional protections do not apply to private organizations. I don't know about free speech limitations in other countries, but I think there is more leeway for government to limit free speech than in America, in most places.

You are free to express any opinion or belief. But you are not protected from the reactions of other people. Free speech includes the right to criticize the beliefs you hold and lambast you for holding them.

On a different note, have you read R.A.V. v City of St Paul? I think you'd find it interesting, and is more along the lines of what you're getting at than "free speech" as a topic in its entirety. It deals with hate speech/expression. Here's Scalia's opinion from the case. There were three concurring opinions (White, Blackmun, and Stevens), so the court was pretty split for a unanimous verdict. For anyone who doesn't know, a concurring opinion is when a justice basically agrees with the "majority" outcome but has a different reasoning. Actually, they can write a separate opinion for any reason, they just usually only write a concurring opinion if they have different reasons for coming to a similar verdict. I find myself agreeing with White much more than Scalia in this case.

PizzaOnEarth · 2013-10-07T01:28:28+00:00

I think the only time 'speech' can be a problem is when it transitions from 'speech' to 'inciting hate crimes / violence' and actual action.

If it is necessarily restricted to words, then it should always be tolerable.

Title	Freedom of Speech
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	4
Comments	20
Date	October 7, 2013 1:00 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1nvlve/freedom_of_speech/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/freedom-of-speech.286716 https://theredarchive.com/post/286716

Comments