What is ‘Freedom of Speech?

[clydefrand]

Does freedom of speech mean anyone can say anything, even glaring lies about anything they want? (it shouldn’t)

Does it mean that some of the media (print/tv/radio/internet) can repeat lies over and over thinking if they say it often enough everyone will believe them? (it shouldn’t)

Does it mean that any kind of vulgar language can be used as often as
they like? (it shouldn’t)

Does it mean just because one person out of billions on earth is killed that shouldn’t have been that the media can call this BREAKING NEWS for days on end, showing the same thing over and over until people get totally sick of listening - which means very few if any will do something to make things right in the world? (it shouldn’t)

Does it mean that a person’s life can be totally ruined by someone’s free speech and that person can’t do a thing about it? (it shouldn’t)

Can anyone say what they think about something just as I an doing with this writing? That, I think, must be allowed.
I think the MSM is going way, way beyond reason on too many subjects, and I think the world is becoming a worse place because of it.

[annabanana]

1. It means

that the government can't stop you from voicing your opinions.

That's pretty much it.

[CJCRANE]

2. We need more diversity in the MSM.

Freedom of speech works best when everyone has a chance to get their views heard.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Only your last item, regarding defamation is not an example of protected free speech.

You cannot libel somebody with impunity, that is a civil matter and not an example of government regulation of speech.

There are some government regulations of speech: for example punitive treatment of whistleblowers, the misapplication of espionage laws etc. to suppress the dissemination of information about what our government is actually doing that didn't make your list.

[Kurska]

4. Government censorship of the media a dark road

I don't want to go down.

[Fred Sanders]

7. Not censorship, consequence.

[Nye Bevan]

8. "Consequence" is very close to "censorship".

If the consequence of pissing off someone in the government is a prison sentence, or a big fine, then that will achieve the same goals that censorship would.

[GGJohn]

9. Consequence leads to censorship.

If you're afraid of the consequences of what you might say, that could lead one to not say it because of the fear of retaliation.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Yes, the retaliation being the pointing out of the lies, and loudly, repeatedly condemning it? That kind of

"retaliation" is what is minimally required, but I see no evidence of any media pushback against their media lying brethren.

Yes, and then the lying fuckers might not say "it", agreed......then they many not, that is the point.......sigh......"it" being manufactured lies intended to incite violence.

Libertarians in the left wing will be outraged at the "tyranny" of "government censorship", but there are many many nations with hate speech laws and, look, still no government tyranny.

I equate the liberal response to restrictions on free speech akin to Germany or Canada, equating restrictions as government tyranny on the doorstep, as being as logical and common sensical as tea party folk equating gun control legislation as government tyranny on the doorstep.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. You want a Ministry of Truth to tell us what to believe?

[name not needed]

11. Consequences, enforced by the state.

And my "progressive" friends wonder why I've left the reservation.

[dumbcat]

13. It's amazing, isn't it?

I can't believe I am hearing calls for govt censorship here.

[jberryhill]

15. I miss the television ads for cigarettes

[dumbcat]

21. Don't you think

commercial ads for a product over the public airwaves is a bit different than opinions and/or political speech?

[gollygee]

19. It means no governmental consequences

Losing business and friends is one kind of consequence that can happen though.

[Fred Sanders]

6. In America, yes. Look at the purposely edited chant videos used to incite hate....no consequences...

[dissentient]

10. My answers

Does freedom of speech mean anyone can say anything, even glaring lies about anything they want?
Yes, and it should.

Does it mean that some of the media (print/tv/radio/internet) can repeat lies over and over thinking if they say it often enough everyone will believe them?
Yes. But the media should be policing itself, and calling out any lies by other media. Unfortunately, in the corporate media, this isn't happening like it should.

Does it mean that any kind of vulgar language can be used as often as they like?
Yes, and it should.

Does it mean that a person’s life can be totally ruined by someone’s free speech and that person can’t do a thing about it? No, because people can defend themselves by using free speech in the media, and call out media lies.

Can anyone say what they think about something just as I an doing with this writing? That, I think, must be allowed.
Well, considering your previous thoughts, that is very generous of you.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. These anti First Amendment posts seem to me to be seeking anti blasphemy laws

I think they are religious nuts who want to control what others say and do. Fuck that shit. Practice your faith if you wish, but others are not going to obey your desire for an atavistic and strictly controlled society with you at the top telling others what is 'vulgar'.
I think this OP is obscene. That's way worse than vulgar.

[hughee99]

16. To many people, "Freedom of Speech" seems to mean that people should be free

to agree with them, and people that don't agree are guilty of using "hate speech" or slander.

[X_Digger]

17. "free speech" is between you and the government. All the rest of your rant? Irrelevant. n/t

[NuclearDem]

18. Freedom of speech means, with certain exceptions, the government can't interfere with your speech.

It's not freedom from feedback.

[True Blue Door]

20. To be pedantic

it means that no authority or other coercive force will prevent you from communicating your thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and opinions, and none may retaliate for that communication in any way that goes beyond an equal exercise of expression.

Legitimate restrictions only exist when expression has no communicative function other than to coerce the actions of another: Saying "give me your money or die" is robbery and threat, not communication.

However, like all morals, there is a frothing borderline of dangerous quandaries in free speech. It is speech to advocate violence (e.g., promoting war, or violent resistance to oppression), but not speech to threaten violence - i.e., indicating an intention to act. The exact border is left up to common sense and decency to determine, which inevitably leads to cases of official abuse against some and impunity by others.

But anyone may retaliate against another's speech in a way that is also speech: You can disagree politely; you can argue intelligently; you can express your opinion that this person is a moron or a lunatic or a vicious degenerate, so long as the disparagement isn't hyperbolic enough to represent slanderous falsehood if your antagonist is a private citizen (another border reliant on common sense); you can withdraw your association from them socially, politically, or economically (e.g., ostracism, boycott); and you can even hypocritically demand that authorities silence them.

The rules are (or need to be) different for public officials, and for scarce communications resources regulated by licensed monopoly (e.g., broadcasting). Since they possess a disproportionate capacity to coerce through their words, they are obligated to be more responsible, and we are obligated to hold them to a higher standard of accountability.

In my view, the FCC is currently in extreme violation of its responsibilities. It exercises basically no restraint on violent or bigoted programming on licensed monopoly broadcast programs, and will not require balance in broadcast news coverage, and yet clings to stringent regulation of "dirty words" and nudity with hefty fines for violators. In fact, the rare times when it does stomp on violent imagery is when the imagery is real, being shown by news reports, and is politically inconvenient to conservatives. FCC policies bear no resemblance to morality or ethics of any kind.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. My two cents

Freedom of speech is just what it seems, that is having the freedom to say what you want. Free speech is a right, deriving from those the Founders expressed as "certain unalienable Rights", (that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness). Our current Bill of Rights names and protects freedom of speech from government interference.

Words, themselves, and the manner of their expression are inferred to have purpose. While you are "free" to say what you want, saying certain things in certain circumstances will bring certain consequences. If you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you can expect criminal charges.

Why do ask about freedom of speech? Knowing the cause for your quest might help me to focus on an answer.

[spanone]

23. it means faux news can lie with impunity 24/7

[sarisataka]

24. It means

People can say stuff even if I don't like it or disagree with what they say

[brooklynite]

25. For all the above speech freedoms you think should be limited...

...can you come up with a limitation that everyone can agree with?

If not, I'll stick with absolute freedom.

[elleng]

26. Derived from the First Amendment to the Constitution:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Well said

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. It means OPs like this are protected even though they are glaringly self-contradicting.

[ChosenUnWisely]

30. Same as Justice now-a-days it is what one can afford.

Ones free speech is directly proportional to how much money one has to either freely speak or control what other may or may not say or write or film or report....

If one via money can control the speech medium or platform, one controls the speech or content.

Same with Justice, the more money one has the more one can get away with.

[chrisa]

31. What is the truth? You realize that, in 2003, the "truth" was that

there were WMD in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden was Saddam's best friend, Jessica Lynch was rescued in a huge firefight, and the Hussein regime wanted to get their hands on yellow cake uranium, right? Anyone who reported otherwise was a "liar" and would be treated accordingly.

Reporting the facts would be a violation of free speech, and journalists would be punished. Nothing would be better of use by the far right to keep everyone else in line than punishments in the media for what is deemed "lying."

[Hissyspit]

32. Shut up.

How's that feel?

[Hissyspit]

33. For all that writing in the OP

you didn't go to the trouble of posting this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[LWolf]

34. Freedom

relies on a great deal of self-regulation; the more authoritarian, the less free.

"Freedom of speech" can mean different things in different contexts. In those you provided:

Yes. Freedom of speech means that people can tell lies. It's up to the listener to evaluate statements, seek out information, and prove false if necessary.

The media? I don't think the media should be promoting lies; that's propaganda, and I think the media should be subject to some limited standards and regulations.

People are free to use vulgar language, up to the point that it becomes hate speech and infringes on the rights of others to be physically, socially, and emotionally safe.

People are free to turn the news off and seek out alternative sources that focus on everything, not just on the negative and/or sensational. It's people's appetite for crap that grows it.

Individual rights end with the individual. That's the limit: a right can be exercised, but not in such a way as to infringe on the rights of others.

As for the right to speak our minds, and the MSM...the MSM are propaganda machines owned by capitalists with the intent of controlling the conversation while making $$$.

[randys1]

35. Oy vey LOL