To what extent free spech

if a speaker incites violence, does society have a moral obligation to let them speak?

how about if they incite people to break the laws in other ways?

what does "support free speech" mean in a technical since? should non-government organizations be forced to let people speak? to what extent should those organizations have control over their offering of this support?

does the support of free speech depend on the content of the speech? should all speech be "free equally?"

not really concerned with the laws as such on the books, looking to keep this more philosophically bound.

the only speech that people/the state try to shut down is "dangerous speech" -- right now, that means "racist speech" -- nobody's ever going to prevent your ability to say normal anodyne things that nobody cares about.

freedom of speech is explicitly about the right to say extremely objectionable things in the public square

There must be like 5 Megabytes in that room.

non-government organizations (businesses) are already forced (by the federal government) to uphold the federal government's mandates, like oh, i don't know: upholding the right to not be discriminated against based on your race or religion, they should be required to uphold freedom of speech, as well, as the ability to debate issues openly is fundamental to the intellectual future of our society

freedom of speech is meaningless if you can't speak on the sidewalks, on the internet, or in the cafes -- if you're only free to speak while you're literally standing on government property (and will be fired anyway), we've failed as a society

what defines "normal things" that nobody cares about?

pedophila? racism? anti-religious? anti-vaccine? anti-gay? can i say "fuck" on live tv without being held personally responsible? what if i say rape?

do they have a right to a microphone to say that speech? should they be allowed on public radio? should they be allowed on private radio just because they have enough money to buy a timeslot?

I should be allowed to say whatever I want, as should you.

am i allowed to send emails to my coworkers? do i have a legal right to "send-all" while on my company network and not to vote for trump? what if i try to convert them to my religion?

should there really be no consequences for saying stuff?

i meant:
> do i have a legal right to "send-all" while on my company network and tell them not to vote for trump?

People should be able to say what the fuck ever they fucking want. You don't like it? Too fucking bad. Take it in the ass bitch.

>People should be able to say what the fuck ever they fucking want.
Sure, but are there allowed to be consequences for their speech? Can I refuse to employ you because of something you said? Can I refuse to resuscitate you if my job is to be an EMT?

If you dont resuscitate based on hurt fee fees, you are not doing your job correctly. Not free speech issue

I agree. What about the employment issue, though? Can I fire somebody because he is an avowed racist?

To me this is the very tipping point of the philosophical divide which is defining our era. Are corporations free to act as they desire? Similarly, are people free to act as they desire relative to their subordinates? Can I ever sue because of something someone says?

>if a speaker incites violence
This is the wrong type of thinking. Speech should never be an excuse to become violent. We're grown adults and responsible for our actions and not animals.

i'd say it's more irresponsible to let someone give details or advice on how to be violent to the masses.

it's like, yeah, technically i agree with you that people should be allowed to say whatever they want, but only mostly. unconstrained anything is dangerous in the sphere of politics.

corporations aren't real people. they're powerful sociopaths, at best, and therefore they don't deserve the same rights as real human beings.

a corporation has no right to freedom of speech (a corporation fundamentally doesn't have thoughts, or agency, only a mandate to seek profit), whereas a human does. Corporations are not free to act as they desire (see diversity hiring laws)

>i'd say it's more irresponsible to let someone give details or advice on how to be violent to the masses.
I'd say you're wrong. After the first amendment is the second and it's designed on the precursory idea sometimes you have to be violent.

>(a corporation fundamentally doesn't have thoughts, or agency, only a mandate to seek profit)
are you sure they don't have agency? sure seems like they adapt and have opinions as much as the average human.

If speech results in violence then the violent party is responsible. Direct threats should be monitored but action only taken after intent is shown.

I think people confuse free speech with freedom from consequences of such speech.
You can say racist stuff. But it is perfectly reasonable for employer to do cost benefit analysis.

>But it is perfectly reasonable for employer to do cost benefit analysis.
Affirmative actions says otherwise. Therefore firing someone for exercising their first amendment rights but a protected party who wasn't qualified for their job because of race or gender can't be is a double standard. Enforce all laws equally.

why should we do it only because the constitution says so?

If all members of society vote with gunfire, who is left to suppress freedom?

Those rights are natural rights. We don't have them because the government gives them to us. We've always had them. It's up to us to keep and use them.

Anything except calls to incite violence - such as "Now join me in lynching those niggers over there" or "punch anybody with a Tiki torch, they're evil Nazis!" - should be tolerated.

Yes. Affirmative action, diversity education, "only white ppl can be racist" etc. Huuuge problem.

In the US, the legal question answered the philosophical question quite neatly, IMHO.

Saying, "Let's commit a crime" becomes a crime when it constitutes a plan to commit a crime, rather than a contrafactual statement.

Morality is the autistic ree of philosophy. You can safely ignore it and listen to it at your peril.

that's not free speech then. free speech is the protection of all speech

you're an embarassment to that flag

Free speech extends to legal action against things said, it doesn't mean that there are no consequences. Read a fucking book.

Didn't feminist have a guy thrown in jail for tweeting in Canada?

>I can't say anything mean on the internet or Google will remove it
>I can't effectively communicate my thoughts to any other member of my own species because a gigantic corporation doesn't like it
>That's just a consequence
>At least I still have the constitution

How did you turn into such a faggot, user?

This. Google has practically become a utility at this point. Corporations should be held to the constitutional process as they have manipulated law via lobbying.

Either ban lobbying or bring corporations to heel.

Anything can incite violence though. Citing statistics, reciting a poem, calling for peace. Literally anything can incite.

hey retard, yes, yes she did -- and that's what you're cheering for in your own country

once you back down on defending the bad speech that we all find distasteful, they'll come after you

take this as a warning... you're trying to be reasonable with totalitarians who want you and your family tortured in a gulag for having the wrong thoughts. they'd tweet jokes about you in front of the firing squad

have fun with your "reasonable limits" on your freedoms

For me personally I think you should have the right to say whatever you want. If you go to the town square and shout about how Osama Bin Laden was the best thing to happen to the world and that 9/11 was amazing you should have the right to do so. If you go out in public and say "I'm gonna kill person X, here's my plan, here's a pic of my gun n stuff" you should have a right to do so, but know you're ass is getting arrested.

It's like me saying I'm gonna punch someone, and me actually doing it.
Yea I said it but I may have never went through with it or I may have. So is it right to reprimand me before but saying I will which you have no way of knowing if I will, or reprimanding me after the action.

It also depends exactly on what's being said but I think I've made my point.

>and that's what you're cheering for in your own country
Did you read my posts? Get control of your debator's high, fagtron.

Do not mistaken speech as being something other than action. Speech IS action. Some speech is violent. Some violence is necessary.

thought you were other fag, i'm not tracking ids

guy who wants "free speech, except the bad stuff" is the faggot

>guy who wants "free speech, except the bad stuff" is the faggot
Agreed.

The internet isn't a medium of legal action. It is owned by businesses who can do whatever they want with their product. Yeah, that's the definition of consequence.

>It is owned by businesses...
No. The internet was not created or maintained by businesses. No joke, it manifested on its own from the collective organization of individuals. No one can claim its creation or ownership. No should companies be allowed to since it is a primary means of communication.

If a company, like Google, wants to use it for profit they should be subject to strict restrictions to prevent them from unilaterally and individually blacklisting/controlling speech on the internet. It's not their job and nor should they be allowed to. Their product isn't, "The internet." It's a collection of services based on it (and some of them aren't even services but rather parasitic reactions).

I wholeheartedly disagree.

generally speaking all speech short of calls to violence should be protected.

No where should we, as a society, decide to draw the line on what constitutes a "call to violence."

At what point does speech cross the line from irony, humor, or even racist vitriol to legitimate violent action?

I could say,
>gas the kikes race war now

but clearly that does not have the same implications as violent as,

>I hate muslisms so much. Im going to go bomb X mosque on Y date.

How far do we have to split hairs to find a reasonable solution?

>How far do we have to split hairs to find a reasonable solution?
I'd argue we go as far as it starts to deprive others of their rights.

Also I'd just like to say that your topic was refreshing compared to most stuff here on Sup Forums.

I enjoy the shitposting as much as the next guy, but sometimes vague philosophical questions spur more thought.

agreed.

Easy to make the statement, but hard to define in precise practical terms.

This isn't a hypothetical. The supreme court has ruled on this many times.

Free Speech is the thing that separates the free world from the rest of the world. It is a prerequisite for a society that votes. It took thousands of years of warfare and torture over religious minutia to learn it's importance. Read the federalist papers, your civics teachers have failed.

>but hard to define in precise practical terms.
Not especially. Rights are clearly outlined in the declaration of independence (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and the bill of rights. There's hardly any grey area with them.

>should non-government organizations be forced to let people speak?
Yes. It's a basic human right.

>I have the freedom to speak as I want and associate with who I want
>Except on private property
>Everything is private property

it's a shame "cuck" got overused so much, it describes you perfectly

The courts disagree, by the way, nice Reddit-tier "knowledge" (he got his education from an xkcd cartoon)

Perhaps you should refer to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) instead of fucking Reddit, you huge faggot

A space owned by a private entity (e.g. a university, or the sidewalks outside a business) is still a "public forum" and freedom of speech must be respected in public forums

basically go fuck yourself you dumb cunt, your "haha there's no freedom from consequences" meme is idiotic

Free speech is exactly what is says, the freedom to say anything. You've got to be fucking retarded if you don't understand that there should be no limits to the words that come out of your mouth.

There should be no censorship anyone should be allowed to say whatever blasphemy they desire anything less is protectionism and creates children not men.

free speech = free will.
you cannot restrict one without restricting the other.
No one incites violence via speech unless the listener, exercising their free will, CHOOSES violence

you say double standard i say false equivalence. maybe racism is worse than being able to say what you want just "because".

>Enforce all laws equally.
this never happens and you know it

no way do i want to charge people based on intent. that's some minority report shit right there

Do you just toss out buzzwords for free or are you paid? Because nothing you said makes sense, with or without buzz words.

>you should have a right to do so, but know you're ass is getting arrested.
that doesn't sound like much of a right if i'm getting arrested for it. that's like saying i have the "freedom to steal" even though i will get arrested for it. it reduces "freedom" to some kind of frivolous thing in the "free will" sense of the word

i agree. it makes me hopeful for the internet. this is the kind of thing i don't feel comfortable talking about with people i know. but here i am allowed to communicate openly and freely. it's beautiful.

Telling people to kill someone is illegal. -Inciting Violence or Murder

Making up lies about someone is illegal. -Slander

Saying this someone doesn't like. -legal

Free speech includes speech that people are offended by. Being offended by something doesn't mean it's inciting violence.