# Free speech with limits (valid free speech)



## Creamu (May 2, 2022)

Hello,

I am a little bit scared right now...

Okay *inhales*

Well. Free speech is nice, but there must be limits. If you say something that hurts others of course thats no fair play. It makes things more complicated, but it protects the vulnarable.

In this thread I would like to share boundaries of what is valid free speech.

Please post examples of what is valid free speech and what is not.

Thank you


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2022)

"If you say something that hurts others of course thats no fair play. It makes things more complicated, but it protects the vulnarable."
So that is completely arbitrary, and arguably the antithesis of free speech, before we even start -- something might "hurt" someone, but others would be all "sticks and stones", and language changes over time (including what is offensive and what is not, and changes between countries speaking nominally the same language), and no idea what vulnerable might entail for this one (likely something completely arbitrary as well).

For the most part free speech is good but I can't get to absolutist levels. The general understanding of US free speech is what I would go for -- direct threats of violence (including the mob commander scenario) and intellectual property are good things to be able to be pinged over even if we now have to define intellectual property (hint for me it is going to be far removed from the US take whilst still being recognisable as coming from the same origin). The shouting fire in a crowded theatre debate is an interesting one in these debates. Libel and slander is stuff that should be able to be sued over, though we might have a debate on the limits there of what counts as a public person when it comes to that aspect of law. Government secrets is a fun one that I might stretch to grant but am happy to entertain arguments otherwise, and recognise power creep (seeing some of the stuff classified makes me wonder if they would make used toilet paper top secret). Contractual secrets is also a fun one but that also brings in contract law and what is an onerous restriction. Professional conduct might also be a thing to ponder -- I am no psychiatrist nor counsellor so does that make me able to say more as long as I don't represent myself as those two or similar. Professional titles are also good ones here -- the case of the traffic lights and "professional engineering" being a good one in this.


----------



## Xzi (May 3, 2022)

Free speech already has limits and potential consequences.  The first amendment only protects you from government retaliation.  As some guy recently demonstrated though, if you annoy the shit out of Mike Tyson, you're still gonna take one to the face.  Just as an example.


----------



## Magnus87 (May 3, 2022)

I believe in freedom of expression but I understand that there are people who will use it to hurt others.
However, the best tool we have is not censorship but "ignoring" those who seek to generate hate.

If someone says "X sucks, Y is the best", don't explain it or anything, just pretend it never existed. Silence and indifference kill any idea of generating conflict.


As I said before, censorship is never good because today "X is in power" and can censor Y, but tomorrow Y or someone else can come to power and decide what is censored or not.


----------



## impeeza (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am a little bit scared right now...
> 
> ...


that question has occupied great philosophers from ancient times.  "I don't agree with you, but I will die defending your right to express yourself" that is deep.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> "If you say something that hurts others of course thats no fair play. It makes things more complicated, but it protects the vulnarable."
> So that is completely arbitrary, and arguably the antithesis of free speech, before we even start -- something might "hurt" someone, but others would be all "sticks and stones", and language changes over time (including what is offensive and what is not, and changes between countries speaking nominally the same language), and no idea what vulnerable might entail for this one (likely something completely arbitrary as well).


Do you want to allow people saying things that make others cry?



Xzi said:


> Free speech already has limits and potential consequences.  The first amendment only protects you from government retaliation.  As some guy recently demonstrated though, if you annoy the shit out of Mike Tyson, you're still gonna take one to the face.  Just as an example.


Yes this is why we have to privatise govermental institutions. If the police is private its easier to save the vulnarable.


Magnus87 said:


> I believe in freedom of expression but I understand that there are people who will use it to hurt others.
> However, the best tool we have is not censorship but "ignoring" those who seek to generate hate.


But what if their hateful speech leads to a hateful goverment if ignored?


impeeza said:


> that question has occupied great philosophers from ancient times.  "I don't agree with you, but I will die defending your right to express yourself" that is deep.


Would you die if your existence hurts others?


----------



## impeeza (May 3, 2022)

Yes because I am tied to the first law.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Do you want to allow people saying things that make others cry?
> 
> 
> Yes this is why we have to privatise govermental institutions. If the police is private its easier to save the vulnarable.
> ...


Why wouldn't I?

You can have private police. I will pay more for mine though so good luck getting them to respond for you. Vulnerable be damned, maybe if they die I won't have to look at them and Darwinism is brought back after a bit of an absence.

Is that a particularly useful concept or rational fear?

I am sure my existence hurts others. Some poor farmer somewhere probably lacks food now so I can gobble superfoods (or lacks a forest because I wanted palm oil for my food), I am sure some Islamic fundamentalist in a tent somewhere is livid that I and those like me exist, I am sure someone that was never told no as a child has met me and felt foolish courtesy of my words to them when they were being foolish. How do we stop anything there? It seems like an impossible task as everybody has different values (I think Islam is abhorrent as a philosophy, try to force me to follow it and don't be surprised if Mr Rifle comes out to play, others think Islam, of which there are many mutually incompatible types, is the greatest thing to happen in the history of man and thus we are at an impasse. This is but one example of billions).


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> Why wouldn't I?


How cruel.


FAST6191 said:


> You can have private police. I will pay more for mine though so good luck getting them to respond for you. Vulnerable be damned, maybe if they die I won't have to look at them and Darwinism is brought back after a bit of an absence.


The vulnerable will gang up on you, you will see. (See my dark souls thread in eof)


FAST6191 said:


> Is that a particularly useful concept or rational fear?


What?


FAST6191 said:


> I am sure my existence hurts others.


It does.


FAST6191 said:


> Some poor farmer somewhere probably lacks food now so I can gobble superfoods (or lacks a forest because I wanted palm oil for my food), I am sure some Islamic fundamentalist in a tent somewhere is livid that I and those like me exist,


Not if you cut your wii


FAST6191 said:


> I am sure someone that was never told no as a child has met me and felt foolish courtesy of my words to them when they were being foolish. How do we stop anything there? It seems like an impossible task as everybody has different values (I think Islam is abhorrent as a philosophy, try to force me to follow it and don't be surprised if Mr Rifle comes out to play, others think Islam, of which there are many mutually incompatible types, is the greatest thing to happen in the history of man and thus we are at an impasse. This is but one example of billions).


Islamist outnumber you, dont be silly.

Here my dark souls thread:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/help-how-to-deal-with-gangbullying-hollows-dark-souls.611548/


----------



## lokomelo (May 3, 2022)

I my opinion, free speech is only fair if the thing or person you are talking about has a microphone same size of yours, or bigger. The hypothetical example he guy flipping burgers can talk shit about a State Minister, but the opposite would be wrong.

A powerful person or institution talking everything comes to mind against the weak is just plain oppression.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> I my opinion, free speech is only fair if the thing or person you are talking about has a microphone same size of yours, or bigger. The hypothetical example he guy flipping burgers can talk shit about a State Minister, but the opposite would be wrong.
> 
> A powerful person or institution talking everything comes to mind against the weak is just plain oppression.


But how are you going to dominate the cruel and stupid?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> How cruel.
> 
> The vulnerable will gang up on you, you will see. (See my dark souls thread in eof)
> 
> ...


People cry for any number of reasons, people don't do it for the same things. Some things you might predict will do it ahead of time, some you won't whether because of past traumas or for completely irrational reasons.
Most of the time it is best ignored as a vestigial response but even if not then trying to make people not cry and fearing the slap of the law if something I can in no way predict goes wrong... nobody would say anything and that is not a great position to be in.

The vulnerable have no power, especially not in the scenario where my private police can kill them while they barely function. Could make more sense back in history when having willing farm workers or factory workers was the way to wealth but with automation coming along nicely today then good luck with that one.

You say what if hateful speech leads to a hateful government. That does not seem like a rational fear to have, not least of all because "hateful speech" is a nebulous term with no real meaning beyond what people say it has in a given moment (back to unpredictable ahead of time, even more so as people define new words/phrases to get around blocks all the time) but beyond that I am not sure how many examples of that in history there are. Economics, good timing, technology if that is not under economics, the human animal and consent of power structures matter far more here.

Leaving aside Islamist is a specific concept then outnumbering me personally... yeah. Outnumbering, and more importantly outgunning, all those that would be opposed to such a notion... different matter. That is also ignoring that it was but one example of a difference of opinion as far as the way the world works that will never be compatible. Can't have (potentially) billions of different opinions on matters and have to say "these are good, these are not" -- if you can barely trust the government to organise a piss up in a brewery or to get laid in a whorehouse then why would you possibly trust them (never mind those that come in after them, or after those, or after those... to those that might not even have been born yet) to figure out what you can and can not say?

This all sounds like you have a very superficial understanding of matters, that or someone has twisted you up nice and good over this as a concept (there are plenty espousing some odd ideas, and they are quite loud). We can continue though, even if I would implore you to do some more research on the matter.


----------



## lokomelo (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But how are you going to dominate the cruel and stupid?


with sex toys... maybe...


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2022)

anyone calling for limiting free speech is a facist


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> People cry for any number of reasons, people don't do it for the same things. Some things you might predict will do it ahead of time, some you won't whether because of past traumas or for completely irrational reasons.


You voice your speech for irrational reasons


FAST6191 said:


> Most of the time it is best ignored as a vestigial response but even if not then trying to make people not cry and fearing the slap of the law if something I can in no way predict goes wrong... nobody would say anything and that is not a great position to be in.


Well if you say that the wii sucks you can be sure someone is going to be hurt by that.


FAST6191 said:


> The vulnerable have no power, especially not in the scenario where my private police can kill them while they barely function. Could make more sense back in history when having willing farm workers or factory workers was the way to wealth but with automation coming along nicely today then good luck with that one.


You are wrong, I would implore you to do some more research my dark souls thread.


FAST6191 said:


> You say what if hateful speech leads to a hateful government. That does not seem like a rational fear to have, not least of all because "hateful speech" is a nebulous term with no real meaning beyond what people say it has in a given moment (back to unpredictable ahead of time, even more so as people define new words/phrases to get around blocks all the time) but beyond that I am not sure how many examples of that in history there are. Economics, good timing, technology if that is not under economics, the human animal and consent of power structures matter far more here.


If people keep talking how bad the wii is there will never be a wii2


FAST6191 said:


> Leaving aside Islamist is a specific concept then outnumbering me personally... yeah. Outnumbering, and more importantly outgunning, all those that would be opposed to such a notion... different matter. That is also ignoring that it was but one example of a difference of opinion as far as the way the world works that will never be compatible. Can't have (potentially) billions of different opinions on matters and have to say "these are good, these are not" -- if you can barely trust the government to organise a piss up in a brewery or to get laid in a whorehouse then why would you possibly trust them (never mind those that come in after them, or after those, or after those... to those that might not even have been born yet) to figure out what you can and can not say?


They are very specialist in that, they are experts in figuring that out.


FAST6191 said:


> This all sounds like you have a very superficial understanding of matters, that or someone has twisted you up nice and good over this as a concept (there are plenty espousing some odd ideas, and they are quite loud). We can continue though, even if I would implore you to do some more research on the matter.


Well maybe you should look at my dark souls thread first.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> anyone calling for limiting free speech is a facist


But what if.free speech leads to facism?


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But what if.free speech leads to facism?


trying to limit it by itself it is fascism  and leads to it


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> trying to limit it by itself it is fascism  and leads to it


How will we stop facism then?


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 3, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> anyone calling for limiting free speech is a facist


More or less true. No matter the side its a fact. 

The issue is split down the middle between facts and opinions, and the line between the two is almost non existent to a lot of people who lack critical thinking skills. In the better days we could find that crazy asshole parading around about how the world is going to end, how the government is full of alien reptiles and that we exist in some snow globe or on the back of some celestial turtle and we would just point and laugh at them for being so batshit insane. Now however the wonders of the internet allow anyone to take the words of these people and with enough nuance make it seem factual even when its clearly not. Add some algorithmic systems to hook in the borderline unhinged people to become devoted followers and use platforms of social media as their presence of gathering ensuring dependency of it as a form of livelihood and you now have the current state of our society. 

I still think that facebook is the worse evil in enabling these people to gather and grow through the dependency on their platform. That said the issue with Twitter is that there needs to be more subtle nature in calling these people out for what they are, since simply banning them, and anyone with any conflicting opinion to the mass share of users would only empower their beliefs to be stronger since they are being silenced by powers trying to keep "the truth" out of discussion. 

For all the shit Twitter gets, I did actually like the fact they started to apply factual astericks over some tweets just so they can clearly define what is a opinion/lie parading around as a false fact so that those who lack critical thinking skills can at least have the oppurtunity to know what is factual and what is not. Even if it is basically spoon feeding idiots so they don't follow the wrong information. Its much better than outright banning or removing posts. Therefore Free Speech is not removed, its just a matter of making sure the facts are involved just as much as the lies people try to spread willingly or unknowingly.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

Free speech doesn't mean true speech. It's not a crime to offend someone, regardless if you did it intentionally or not. There's also no such thing as hate speech. Your speech should not be limited nor should you be afraid to speaking your mind about anything at any time for any reason. Sure, private companies can censor you, but what does that say about them? Why are you using an entity that censors you?


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Free speech doesn't mean true speech. It's not a crime to offend someone, regardless if you did it intentionally or not. There's also no such thing as hate speech.


What about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country


JonhathonBaxster said:


> Your speech should not be limited nor should you be afraid to speaking your mind about anything at any time for any reason. Sure, private companies can censor you, but what does that say about them? Why are you using an entity that censors you?


What if all componies censor you?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> What about this?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country



I know what is called "hate speech" has creeped into peoples minds, but it's a fabrication that's abused by the left as a means to control what you say and how you think. It's utter bullshit.



Creamu said:


> What if all componies censor you?



That would be terrible, but it's not the case.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I know what is called "hate speech" has creeped into peoples minds, but it's a fabrication that's abused by the left as a means to control what you say and how you think. It's utter bullshit.


So you are saying, what you are saying cant be hateful towards others?


JonhathonBaxster said:


> That would be terrible, but it's not the case.


But what if that will be the case?


----------



## Tomato123 (May 3, 2022)

It's basically impossible to police what people say because who is the one saying what is good/bad? Everyone has a bias and has different levels of what they believe is ok. You either have complete free speech or you become North Korea. A middle ground leaves too much open for people to complain about not being able to say certain things. Censoring people causes anger which is part of what causes extreme groups to pop up.

Personally, I believe complete free speech is the only way forward. I may be bi, but I am completely accepting of people who would call me a certain slur beginning with f. As far as I'm concerned, it is their right to say whatever they want. Words are not actions.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> So you are saying, what you are saying cant be hateful towards others?


Hate is a normal human emotion and expressing it can be good for you as long as you do it in a productive manner. The left cries about hateful speech yet generalizes and sterotypes old white men, Christains and Conservatives and expresses all sorts of hate towards them yet somehow this is okay, but you doing the same thing to them or their protected classes of people is not allowed. It's utter bullshit. Hate speech is a simple tool used by the left to try to control you. Personally, I don't care. If I want to insult someone, something or a group of people I'm going to do it regardless of any laws made that have limited free speech. Sure, there might be consequences, but I'm an adult. I can live with it and if enough people would ignore the attempts to control you there's nothing the left could do to stop it from happening. Hate speech is a joke.



Creamu said:


> But what if that will be the case?



I'm not sure what I'd do if I wasn't allowed to express how I feel or speak my mind about what I think what-so-ever. Luckily, that's not the case. I guess one option would be to create my own space to express myself, but luckily I wouldn't have to do that because the Internet has lots of places, like this site, that allow you to express your thoughts and ideas without massive amounts of censorship.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

Tomato123 said:


> It's basically impossible to police what people say because who is the one saying what is good/bad?


Clearly not you, if you have to ask.


Tomato123 said:


> Everyone has a bias and has different levels of what they believe is ok. You either have complete free speech or you become North Korea.


North Korea it is then.


Tomato123 said:


> A middle ground leaves too much open for people to complain about not being able to say certain things.


Why do you care about the position of hateful bigots?


Tomato123 said:


> Censoring people causes anger which is part of what causes extreme groups to pop up.


Thats why they are against the law.


Tomato123 said:


> Personally, I believe complete free speech is the only way forward. I may be bi, but I am completely accepting of people who would call me a certain slur beginning with f.


Funny guy?


Tomato123 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, it is their right to say whatever they want. Words are not actions.


But dont words lead to action?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Hate is a normal human emotion and expressing it can be good for you as long as you do it in a productive manner. The left cries about hateful speech yet generalizes and sterotypes old white men, Christains and Conservatives and expresses all sorts of hate towards them yet somehow this is okay, but you doing the same thing to them or their protected classes of people is not allowed. It's utter bullshit. Hate speech is a simple tool used by the left to try to control you. Personally, I don't care. If I want to insult someone, something or a group of people I'm going to do it regardless of any laws made that have limited free speech. Sure, there might be consequences, but I'm an adult. I can live with it and if enough people would ignore the attempts to control you there's nothing the left could do to stop it from happening. Hate speech is a joke.


Don't you care about not hurting others at all?


JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not sure what I'd do if I wasn't allowed to express how I feel or speak my mind about what I think what-so-ever. Luckily, that's not the case. I guess one option would be to create my own space to express myself, but luckily I wouldn't have to do that because the Internet has lots of place, like this site, that allow you to express your thoughts and ideas without massive amounts of censorship.


So there is censorship. Why are you okay with that?


----------



## Tomato123 (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Funny guy?


I find that offensive and you should not be able to use your right to free speech to call me that. (You see how silly it is?)

You are using your right for free speech to even talk about it. Without free speech, converations such as this could never exist and the world would be very bland.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

Tomato123 said:


> I find that offensive and you should not be able to use your right to free speech to call me that. (You see how silly it is?)
> 
> You are using your right for free speech to even talk about it. Without free speech, converations such as this could never exist and the world would be very bland.


What to do with hatespeech laws then?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Don't you care about not hurting others at all?



I'm not particularity concerned about other peoples feelings, especially strangers that seem to get offended on an hourly basis.



Creamu said:


> So there is censorship. Why are you okay with that?



I'm not okay with sites like Twitter or Facebook censoring people, which is why I don't have accounts on those sites nor ever plan on creating accounts. Saying those sites suck and not using them is about all I can really do.


----------



## Tomato123 (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> What to do with hatespeech laws then?


Hatespeech is a very touchy subject to be fair. But then what also falls under hatespeech? It's very broad. What is a different race and where do you draw the line saying this person is white/black/asian/etc. People are complex and strict rules with no flexibility cause problems. Sure they might help initially, but people who have no way to vent their frustration for certain things will find other ways to do it. They may even get violent, which is worse than hatespeech.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not particularity concerned about other peoples feelings, especially strangers that seem to get offended on an hourly basis.ence ist against the law...


Don't you have any care for people who cries because of your hateful words?


JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not okay with sites like Twitter or Facebook censoring people, which is why I don't have accounts on those sites nor ever plan on creating accounts. Saying those sites suck and not using them is about all I can really do.


What about the censoship on gbatemp?


Tomato123 said:


> Hatespeech is a very touchy subject to be fair. But then what also falls under hatespeech? It's very broad. What is a different race and where do you draw the line saying this person is white/black/asian/etc. People are complex and strict rules with no flexibility cause problems. Sure they might help initially, but people who have no way to vent their frustration for certain things will find other ways to do it. They may even get violent, which is worse than hatespeech.


Violence is against the law.


----------



## Tomato123 (May 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Violence is against the law.


And has the law stopped murder? Mugging? Burglaries? Any other thing against the law? All these things happen with or without laws as people will still do them. The only way to stop these things is to stop the root cause. Sometimes it's poverty, sometimes it's censorship, etc.


----------



## Creamu (May 3, 2022)

Tomato123 said:


> And has the law stopped murder? Mugging? Burglaries? Any other thing against the law? All these things happen with or without laws as people will still do them. The only way to stop these things is to stop the root cause. Sometimes it's poverty, sometimes it's censorship, etc.


I understand.

I like your profilepic btw


----------



## lokomelo (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Free speech doesn't mean true speech. It's not a crime to offend someone, regardless if you did it intentionally or not. There's also no such thing as hate speech. Your speech should not be limited nor should you be afraid to speaking your mind about anything at any time for any reason. Sure, private companies can censor you, but what does that say about them? Why are you using an entity that censors you?


In many other democratic places, to offend someone is a crime, hate speech also is a crime. Not every place plays by the same rules in that matter. Also, private companies can be forced to withdraw content that it was not moderated accordingly to the law, a democratic enacted law mind you.

What is guaranteed by law in pretty much every democracy is the right to speak, but the right of skip the consequences is not an universal guarantee.


----------



## Magnus87 (May 4, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But what if their hateful speech leads to a hateful goverment if ignored?


If you ignore the one who is with his hate speech, he would never come to power.
Responding to that hate all it does is feed it and publicize it, grow it until the whole world hears it. Obviously it will get followers but if we ignore the original message it will most likely end up disappearing.


If, for example, instead of answering this thread, we decided together not to answer you, it would simply sink to the bottom of the forum without anyone new being able to read it.


----------



## Creamu (May 8, 2022)

Magnus87 said:


> If you ignore the one who is with his hate speech, he would never come to power.
> Responding to that hate all it does is feed it and publicize it, grow it until the whole world hears it. Obviously it will get followers but if we ignore the original message it will most likely end up disappearing.
> 
> 
> If, for example, instead of answering this thread, we decided together not to answer you, it would simply sink to the bottom of the forum without anyone new being able to read it.


But what if I decide in this ignorance to form a secret society and conspire to work in secret against you?


----------



## MikaDubbz (May 8, 2022)

I don't subscribe at all to the idea that free speech should have limits, as that's an incredibly slippery slope to becoming a police-state.  I think the system as it is works, you're free to say what you wish, but your actions can still have consequences, go into work or a business and start yelling, dropping slurs, or making threats, and you'll lose your job or be banned from that business (the humorous part is these days people see this happen, and they think it means they've lost the freedom of speech, but that's not what that means at all).




JonhathonBaxster said:


> Sure, private companies can censor you, but what does that say about them?


That they like money lol.  The whole reason businesses ban those that use hate speech, threats and the like on their premises is because it's a bad look for the business and can hurt their bottom line.  I'm not gonna wanna go into a WalMart if it's a known thing that people are constantly dropping slurs and threats in there for patrons to hear, that's absolutely not a welcoming atmosphere, and they know that.


----------



## Creamu (May 8, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> (...), try to force me to follow it and don't be surprised if Mr Rifle comes out to play, others think Islam, of which there are many mutually incompatible types, is the greatest thing to happen in the history of man and thus we are at an impasse. This is but one example of billions).




What if a peculiar man tells you to put your gun down and to be more respectful?


----------

