Freedom of speech

[Sailor Mars]

So we’re doing a debate in my English class of freedom of speech. Basically, should freedom of speech be limited because of highly offensive or triggering statements that may incite violence or acts of terrorism? It brings up evidence such as the Charlie Hebdo attack, where a French satirical newspaper mocked the prophet Muhammad, and was later attacked by Islamic extremists.

My side: Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that should not be suppressed or infringed upon. It is because of free speech that we have advanced so far in society. Philosophers in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were regarded as dangerous, offensive even, because they questioned society and what was established. However, it is because of those same philosophers that we have modern medicine, advancements in technology and science, and have become so moral. Voltaire, a french historian and writer, had once said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It shows that even though one may disapprove of the context or content of what is being said, it does not take away from the fact that the right to say it should be defended.

The best way to counter ignorant, offensive, or insensitive statements that may incite violence is not to limit free speech, but to persuasively and without agitation, educate the uneducated. It is through knowledge and consciousness of others only that we will be able to prevent ignorance and hateful speech. Without free speech, it could not be exposed those who are uneducated and those who are in need. Without free speech, those who are spiteful of others, enough to make bold and public statements of it, will instead act on their thoughts and further bring more violence into the world. Because of this, freedom of speech should not be infringed upon or limited.

What are your guys’ thoughts?

[mattsmith48]

So we’re doing a debate in my English class of freedom of speech. Basically, should freedom of speech be limited because of highly offensive or triggering statements that may incite violence or acts of terrorism? It brings up evidence such as the Charlie Hebdo attack, where a French satirical newspaper mocked the prophet Muhammad, and was later attacked by Islamic extremists.

My side: Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that should not be suppressed or infringed upon. It is because of free speech that we have advanced so far in society. Philosophers in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were regarded as dangerous, offensive even, because they questioned society and what was established. However, it is because of those same philosophers that we have modern medicine, advancements in technology and science, and have become so moral. Voltaire, a french historian and writer, had once said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It shows that even though one may disapprove of the context or content of what is being said, it does not take away from the fact that the right to say it should be defended.

The best way to counter ignorant, offensive, or insensitive statements that may incite violence is not to limit free speech, but to persuasively and without agitation, educate the uneducated. It is through knowledge and consciousness of others only that we will be able to prevent ignorance and hateful speech. Without free speech, it could not be exposed those who are uneducated and those who are in need. Without free speech, those who are spiteful of others, enough to make bold and public statements of it, will instead act on their thoughts and further bring more violence into the world. Because of this, freedom of speech should not be infringed upon or limited.

What are your guys’ thoughts?

They are already limitations on freedom of speech, you can't threaten someone or incite violence. In most western countries, mostly in Europe, hate speech is also a limitation and because of what happened in Germany in the 1930's and 40's you can see why people may be reluctant to change it, even in places like here in Canada where it is rarely enforced. If you try to ban hate speech we would all need to agree on what hate speech is. If you take the Charlie Hebdo example I think most people would agree the Muhammad cartoons were just jokes, on the same level that the Italy earthquake cartoons were just jokes or the one on hurricane Harvey was just a joke, whether you find it funny or not is your opinion, but it doesn't change the facts they are jokes. If you want to criticize them for making mafia jokes after an earthquake in Italy or for comparing Trump voters to Nazis and thanking God for drowning them, it is your right, as much as it is their right to make those cartoons. Same goes with the Muhammad cartoon. Now banning cartoons or any other mockery of the prophet because two crazy person committed a terrorist attack over it is not the thing to do. First because that's exactly what they want and doing it out of fear is just making their victory even bigger. The second reason is that it favours one religions over the others and that's against secularism so you would have to give the same protection to every religion and then what would we do if couldn't make fun of religion? And what would we do with Mormonism?

As for Educating racists is probably a lost cause, its like with conspiracy theorist you might save a few, but for the majority those believes are so strong no matter what you tell them won't change anything. I think the priority in this case should be their children.

[Dmaxd123]

holy crap, matt & i pretty much agree for once but I guess a lot of our differing views is due to the freedom of speech, we are allowed to look at things from different perspectives and make our own opinions. some countries you are not encouraged to look at something objectively you are treated like a toddler "this is the way it is deal with it"

[jack2001]

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that you get to be an asshole without some form of consequence.

[PlasmaHam]

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that you get to be an asshole without some form of consequence.
Sure, people can call you out and get on your case when your speech clearly deserves it. But it sounds more like you are advocating for a legislative response. Mind describing these "consequences" for us, and how they would be given out?

[ReneLopez]

What if the speech hurts others indirectly, should he/she be punished by law or moral?

[Sailor Mars]

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that you get to be an asshole without some form of consequence.
Legal consequences, no. Societal consequences are different. For example: You may march in a white supremacist rally. A picture is uploaded, including your face. Your employer sees this picture. You are fired. You aren’t going to be arrested for marching in this rally, but your friends sure as hell won’t be happy, and your risking your job and livelihood. I think that’s fair.

What if the speech hurts others indirectly, should he/she be punished by law or moral?
I don’t think any form of free speech should be punished by legal action. Like I said above, if you are ostracized or punished by society and your peers, that’s different.
mattsmith48 (because I’m too lazy to quote ur whole post), speech that purposely calls people to inflict harm on another, such as direct threats or statements of terrorism, aren’t considered free speech. You will get arrested for that, and for obvious reason. However, hate speech or speech against the government is considered free speech.

[lliam]

It's up to you how free you wanna talk. You have to live with possible consequences anyway.

[jack2001]

Legal consequences, no. Societal consequences are different. For example: You may march in a white supremacist rally. A picture is uploaded, including your face. Your employer sees this picture. You are fired. You aren’t going to be arrested for marching in this rally, but your friends sure as hell won’t be happy, and your risking your job and livelihood. I think that’s fair.


Yes, that is what I meant.

Sure, people can call you out and get on your case when your speech clearly deserves it. But it sounds more like you are advocating for a legislative response. Mind describing these "consequences" for us, and how they would be given out?

Not legal consequences, but societal ones. For example, if someone were to march in a neo nazi march, they could then be fired. That is fair, because if your boss doesn't want a nazi for an employee, that's okay. I realize that's what we have now, and I think that's a good system.

Posts merged. Use the multi quote/quote button next time. ~Mars

[NewLeafsFan]

I don't believe that freedom of speech should be something that can be limited. I really don't like your example of the terrorist attack in France. It implies that it happened because the comics being produced were something wrong. He was doing his job; it was the Islamic extremists that were in the wrong.

[Sailor Mars]

I don't believe that freedom of speech should be something that can be limited. I really don't like your example of the terrorist attack in France. It implies that it happened because the comics being produced were something wrong. He was doing his job; it was the Islamic extremists that were in the wrong.

Yeah, im not saying I support the message that the newspaper was saying, but it’s their right to post satirical content and media. The terrorists were in the wrong. I agree with that.

[PlasmaHam]

Not legal consequences, but societal ones. For example, if someone were to march in a neo nazi march, they could then be fired. That is fair, because if your boss doesn't want a nazi for an employee, that's okay. I realize that's what we have now, and I think that's a good system.
Alright, though really that is free speech. It would be anti-free speech to insist that employers have no rights to fire people based upon their expressions and opinions.

[mattsmith48]

mattsmith48 (because I’m too lazy to quote ur whole post), speech that purposely calls people to inflict harm on another, such as direct threats or statements of terrorism, aren’t considered free speech. You will get arrested for that, and for obvious reason. However, hate speech or speech against the government is considered free speech.

Being able to talk against the government and to criticize them is essential to any working democracy. Hate speech, that is debatable whether or not it should be included as free speech.

[serewit]

When I was growing up, I was always taught 'Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you'
I believed in this so much that I would dare people to insult me to show that I honestly didn't care.
Unless someone is physically attacking someone or outright inciting violence - something along the lines of "You should attack this person" - then I think speech should not be limited at all. It's difficult to say when it comes to hate speech, but it can be so subjective and who's to say what the law will consider hate speech years from now? Safer bet is to retain freedom of speech and focus on educating people how to deal with differing opinions with tolerance/conversation and not violence.