What level of free speech do you support?

[GregTheGreat657]

What level of free speech do you support? I, personally am torn between options 1 and 2.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Option 1 best describes my position.

[Proud Houstonian]

Number 2

[Ferguson97]

Somewhere between option 1 and level 2, and it would depend on how you define "hurt someone". Calling someone fat and making them cry hurts their feelings, but no reasonable person would say that this should be a criminal offense. Pointing to a random person in public and declaring them to be a pedophile rapist, resulting in them being brutally beaten by a mob, should be a criminal offense since it is inciting violence and clearly resulted in serious harm to the individual.

I don't see many people opposing libel or slander laws, so I imagine there are very few true free speech absolutists.

[NewYorkExpress]

Option 3.

Hate Speech should be illegal, with as broad a definition of hate speech as possible.

[Alben Barkley]

Depends on what you mean by “hurts” someone else. Emotionally? That’s still free speech. Puts someone in physical danger? That might be a different story. Depends on the context really. But overall probably number 2, but much closer to 1 than 3.

[AGA]

I support the level of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment, so I assume that's #1.

[LBJer]

I voted "Mixed."  I can't say I'm a free speech absolutist because I would interpret that as meaning that, for example, inciting a white supremacist mob to kill African Americans should be protected free speech.  I certainly don't believe that at all.  But I can't say "unless it hurts someone else" because it's not specified what we mean by "hurt."  If "hurt" means violating the rights of another person, then yes.  But if "hurt" means "hurt feelings," then absolutely not.  No one is morally obligated to forfeit their right to speak their mind--or any other important personal freedom--to avoid "hurting" another person in this sense.  There is no right to go through life blissfully without ever having anyone do anything that hurts you emotionally.  Some people seem to think that there is--and they need to grow up. 

[Geoffrey Howe]

I'm fairly sure even people who call themselves "free speech absolutists" make an exception for inciting violence (if violence is likely to result).

[GregTheGreat657]

Hurt means lying about danger and/or saying something that gets someone else attacked

[Xing]

Option 2, assuming that we’re talking about causing physical harm to someone.

[_.]

Somewhere between option 1 and level 2, and it would depend on how you define "hurt someone". Calling someone fat and making them cry hurts their feelings, but no reasonable person would say that this should be a criminal offense. Pointing to a random person in public and declaring them to be a pedophile rapist, resulting in them being brutally beaten by a mob, should be a criminal offense since it is inciting violence and clearly resulted in serious harm to the individual.

I don't see many people opposing libel or slander laws, so I imagine there are very few true free speech absolutists.

This basically


Chose "Unsure" on the poll because the arbiters of what classifies as free speech and what classifies as slander or libel are often not the fairest (especially if you dare say something about someone who is in power), so I somewhat see the appeal of Option 1.

[GeneralMacArthur]

If you incite violence against someone else, you should be liable for that violence.  Even if there is no violence, you should be liable for attempting to incite violence.

If you lie about someone in a way that materially impacts them, you should also be liable for those damages, or (similarly) the attempted damages.  If the press runs a story about how I like to rape little children, they should be forced to print a retraction, and financially compensate me for the damage to my reputation and life, plus a criminal penalty.  This should be true even for public figures like politicians and celebrities -- I don't see why someone like Tara Reade should be protected from the consequences of her lie just because Joe Biden is a public figure.

The thing is that neither of these are really issues of free speech.  They are using speech as a weapon to achieve something else.  You're still free to say these things.  If you're at a bar and tell a friend "boy I'd like to shoot Jim Jordan, big ol' bullet, right through the brain" then that's not actually inciting violence so there's no consequences.  You're allowed to say that.

[VBM]

Free speech absolutism is almost as nonsensical as option 4

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Option 1 best describes my position.

[Alcibiades]

I support the level of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment, so I assume that's #1.

Huh? The 1st Amendment clearly does not protect an absolute right to free speech, as is well-established by numerous cases in which the courts have found there to be limits on free speech.

[Santander]

I support free speech I like (fashbertarian)

[AGA]

I support the level of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment, so I assume that's #1.

Huh? The 1st Amendment clearly does not protect an absolute right to free speech, as is well-established by numerous cases in which the courts have found there to be limits on free speech.

I know there are limits to the 1st Amendment, lol. I've never seen a self-described free-speech absolutist defend the right to things that are not protected by the 1st Amendment, such as incitement of imminent lawless action. If the 1st Amendment counts as #2, then my answer is #2.

[HisGrace]

Voted free speech absolutist just because "hurts someone else" gets so abused these days to justify all kinds of censorship. Hurt feelings is not what should be implied by that statement. Direct incitement of violence, fraud, and slander/libel would all be kinds of speech that should be banned. Although laws against those things should be very narrowly defined to keep them from being abused, better for a few people to get away with things through loopholes than for the state to use them as an excuse to persecute political opponents.

And no, there should absolutely be no charges for incitement if actual violence does not take place.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'm between options 1 & 2. As bad as using speech to hurt people is, I don't think it should be illegal, however I think speech made to threaten or intimidate should be illegal. At the same time, I feel like the government would abuse option 2 and make it illegal to criticize anything whoever in power doesn't like and call it threatening even if it's not, so I'll lean towards option 1.

[Benjamin Frank]

I like Bob Dylan's comments on the corrosive nature of lying in regards to freedom (of course, there are other interpretations of these lyrics, and this isn't prescriptive.)

Freedom just around the corner for you
but with truth so far off, what good will it do?

[Benjamin Frank]

Voted free speech absolutist just because "hurts someone else" gets so abused these days to justify all kinds of censorship. Hurt feelings is not what should be implied by that statement. Direct incitement of violence, fraud, and slander/libel would all be kinds of speech that should be banned. Although laws against those things should be very narrowly defined to keep them from being abused, better for a few people to get away with things through loopholes than for the state to use them as an excuse to persecute political opponents.

And no, there should absolutely be no charges for incitement if actual violence does not take place.

I've discussed this in a previous thread.

If you don't support any other laws infringing on absolute free speech, laws against slander and libel make no sense.  If the principle is that the best defense against bad speech is good speech, and that there is no need to curtail hate speech, or group slander or outright lies (except for fraud in commercial speech), then that should be true for slander/libel cases as well.

If slander/libel cause serious harm that there needs to be laws to curtail, then other speech also must have the potential to cause serious harm.

Again, I'm not being prescriptive as to what should be done.  But, to claim that the best defense against bad speech is good speech (which you did not specifically say, but it is implied by all the free speech absolutists or near absolutists) has clearly shown to not be the case in the Trump era, and is not consistent with slander/libel laws in the first place.

Of course, I'm aware the British media has much tougher rules curtailing lies, and Brexit still occurred partly on the basis of a number of false claims, so clearly there are no perfect solutions.

[CEO Mindset]

Absolutist and I'd extend it to having laws to force corporations to respect free speech on "private property" and not just 1st amendment type protections.

[HisGrace]

Voted free speech absolutist just because "hurts someone else" gets so abused these days to justify all kinds of censorship. Hurt feelings is not what should be implied by that statement. Direct incitement of violence, fraud, and slander/libel would all be kinds of speech that should be banned. Although laws against those things should be very narrowly defined to keep them from being abused, better for a few people to get away with things through loopholes than for the state to use them as an excuse to persecute political opponents.

And no, there should absolutely be no charges for incitement if actual violence does not take place.

I've discussed this in a previous thread.

If you don't support any other laws infringing on absolute free speech, laws against slander and libel make no sense.  If the principle is that the best defense against bad speech is good speech, and that there is no need to curtail hate speech, or group slander or outright lies (except for fraud in commercial speech), then that should be true for slander/libel cases as well.

If slander/libel cause serious harm that there needs to be laws to curtail, then other speech also must have the potential to cause serious harm.

Again, I'm not being prescriptive as to what should be done.  But, to claim that the best defense against bad speech is good speech (which you did not specifically say, but it is implied by all the free speech absolutists or near absolutists) has clearly shown to not be the case in the Trump era, and is not consistent with slander/libel laws in the first place.

Of course, I'm aware the British media has much tougher rules curtailing lies, and Brexit still occurred partly on the basis of a number of false claims, so clearly there are no perfect solutions.

I think your problem here is that you're conflating "bad speech" as one thing. For hate speech that hurts people's feelings, yes, the best way to deal with it is just to counter it and win the argument. Telling concrete lies about people is something that can create actual damages. I think for libel you should have to prove 1. That the speech is false, beyond a reasonable doubt, 2. That it caused concrete damages to the person proportionate to the amount of damages being sought, and C. That the speech was intended to cause that damage.

So no, none of that justifies the kind of hate speech laws the left is obsessed with these days. The role of the government is not to keep you from getting your feelings hurt.

[Benjamin Frank]

Voted free speech absolutist just because "hurts someone else" gets so abused these days to justify all kinds of censorship. Hurt feelings is not what should be implied by that statement. Direct incitement of violence, fraud, and slander/libel would all be kinds of speech that should be banned. Although laws against those things should be very narrowly defined to keep them from being abused, better for a few people to get away with things through loopholes than for the state to use them as an excuse to persecute political opponents.

And no, there should absolutely be no charges for incitement if actual violence does not take place.

I've discussed this in a previous thread.

If you don't support any other laws infringing on absolute free speech, laws against slander and libel make no sense.  If the principle is that the best defense against bad speech is good speech, and that there is no need to curtail hate speech, or group slander or outright lies (except for fraud in commercial speech), then that should be true for slander/libel cases as well.

If slander/libel cause serious harm that there needs to be laws to curtail, then other speech also must have the potential to cause serious harm.

Again, I'm not being prescriptive as to what should be done.  But, to claim that the best defense against bad speech is good speech (which you did not specifically say, but it is implied by all the free speech absolutists or near absolutists) has clearly shown to not be the case in the Trump era, and is not consistent with slander/libel laws in the first place.

Of course, I'm aware the British media has much tougher rules curtailing lies, and Brexit still occurred partly on the basis of a number of false claims, so clearly there are no perfect solutions.

I think your problem here is that you're conflating "bad speech" as one thing. For hate speech that hurts people's feelings, yes, the best way to deal with it is just to counter it and win the argument. Telling concrete lies about people is something that can create actual damages. I think for libel you should have to prove 1. That the speech is false, beyond a reasonable doubt, 2. That it caused concrete damages to the person proportionate to the amount of damages being sought, and C. That the speech was intended to cause that damage.

So no, none of that justifies the kind of hate speech laws the left is obsessed with these days. The role of the government is not to keep you from getting your feelings hurt.

If the purpose of hate speech was 'merely' to hurt other people's feelings, that would be one thing, but even then it's debatable that doesn't have a tangible cost, even if it can't be  as easily quantified as you claim that slander/libel can be, however the purpose of hate speech is often for broader political purposes, to attempt to take away the humanity of the group of people in question.  Obviously Hitler and the Jews in Germany are the most extreme example of that, but there are many cases even in recent history where hate speech has led targeted at marginalized people has led to negative outcomes. 

So, no, I am not conflating anything.