Should freedom of speech go unrestricted or does have its limits? If the later, what limits should there be?

If I disagree with a government's ideals, I support free speech. If I agree with its ideals, I don't support free speech.

GG hombre

Cool gif I'm stealing it.

And you can say what you want the mouth is yours.

Now, the right to say what you want without fear of consequences, that's some utopic shit, nigger.

That utopic shit, is exactly what the right to freedom of speech is an attempt to enact. That pure ideal which has never manifested itself in the world of actions, in the material world is simply what everyone imagines when "freedom of speech" is uttered.

This is the foolishness of the masses, that they can personally have something that if applied against them would universally anger them.

Accept it, the concept of freedom of speech is naught but propaganda.

But the cool thing about utopias, is that the simple act of speak them out loud make them closer to reality.

I used the N word there cause that got me banned fron Veeky Forums before (global 3 ban), and I got the hard captcha this time.

But I'm not banned, cause this is a freedom of speech thread, and that's cool.

This is a very important distinction to make. There is letter of the law "freedom" but that's almost entirely irrelevant to my own concerns with respect to freedom of expression.

Sure, the government most likely won't try to fuck me over for the things I'm interested in talking about, but there are a lot of total fucking morons who will try to ruin your life for expressing mere opinions and those are the ones you have to watch out for. Unfortunately, it's difficult to frame this in a Freedom of Expression context.

So I think there's two big forms of restriction on freedom of expression. Content-based (which I'll discuss) and content-neutral. Content neutral would be like "you aren't allowed to post signs here" and "you have to be quiet after 10pm". I acknowledge that those content-neutral ones can go a long way in the hands of the right/wrong people but I won't be discussing that because I find content-based restrictions are more philosophically interesting.

With that in mind, I'll just pretend that content-neutral restrictions are either utopian/reasonable or non-existent (just irrelevant to the discussion).

When it comes to the content of expression, I'm okay with outlawing the following (and I'd love to hear some feedback on any of this, whether I'm missing something or you think I shouldn't be including something):

>libel/slander - if you, without lawful excuse, fuck up my reputation with your "freedom" then you should be shot

>misleading/false advertising - needs to be carefully distinguished from hyperbole and parodies, but you shouldn't be allowed to scam reasonable people

>gross obscenity - should be restricted to the private sphere. No need to have these disgusting displays of sexual frustration in public i.e. pride parades.

>contractually secret information - if you sign a contract with me to keep something secret, you better fucking stay quiet about it. I have no idea how to reconcile this with my love of whistleblowing drama

...

I should also have clarified that I'm Canadian and we don't have "Freedom of Speech" but instead "Freedom of Expression". It's a bit more broadly construed than the American equivalent (Speech) but significantly less protected.

I'm using the two interchangeably-ish just for the sake of convenience. Differences, for this discussion, should be negligible.

As a side note, I did a bunch of legal research on this topic this past semester and I don't think any developed country on Earth has anywhere near the level of protection for freedom of speech as the USA. Americanons should feel pretty lucky.

Freedom of speech is a right as long as you can defend it from communists. In the United States, for example, the Second Amendment protects the First. In countries like UK where they gave up their guns, the commies have abolished freedom of speech already.

>I don't think any developed country on Earth has anywhere near the level of protection for freedom of speech as the USA.
From what I've noticed, there's a huge distinction between Americans and foreigners (particularly yuros) when it comes to government.

Yuros seem to have the mindset of "why should I be allowed to do this?" when it comes to government regulating something, while the American mindset is quite the opposite "why the fuck is it the government's problem?"

Common in my lifetime, my country got out from a right wing dictatorship that detroned a socialist regime (a real one not like the british one), and our freedom of speech during the right wing years was limited to say the least.

The second amendment part, I concede is very important, you may be gun nuts, but it serves a higher purpose.

You got any more le libertarian snake edits?
I love these.

Just take my folder
mediafire.com/download/o3wsdolihoaxiu2/tread.zip

I never knew I needed this posture untill now

The only limits should be disturbing the peace and sone location/property laws.

Anybody thay condones more drastic limits on the freesom of speech needs to fuck off to canada or some other non American shithole.

yeah hold onto your butts m8

...

...

and that's all I got, unfortunately

Thanks bruh

The fact that its a law in a country. But since America is the only actual country on the planet, then it applies to all citizens, helping us justify our freedom crusades.

no problem dude

You're entirely correct but it even applies to a lot of Canadians as well, sadly.

I'm way more American in my thinking than most of my classmates but the difference is real and obvious.

I think it's a historical thing - the USA is basically a gangster nation born out of telling the (then) Gov't to GTFO or die. Totally badass.

Other countries don't really have this. Especially here in Canada, where we basically had a long, slow, nuanced, discussion about our freedom.

You should say whatever you want but, if you offend me enough the law should be on my side to let me get away with beating you black and blue until you shout for mercy and ask for my forgiveness at which point I'm entitled to stop plummeting you and forgive you.

>muh appeal to emotions

>muh romantic idealism

Control yourself, an ideal world cannot exist in this world of ever-changing action.

Define ideal shithead
idealism is relative fuckface

i·de·al
īˈdē(ə)l/
adjective
1.
satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
"the swimming pool is ideal for a quick dip"
synonyms: perfect, best possible, consummate, supreme, excellent, flawless, faultless, exemplary, classic, model, ultimate, quintessential, picture-perfect
"ideal flying weather"
2.
existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.
"in an ideal world, we might have made a different decision"
synonyms: unattainable, unachievable, impracticable, chimerical;
noun
1.
a person or thing regarded as perfect.
"you're my ideal of how a man should be"
synonyms: perfection, paragon, epitome, shining example, ne plus ultra, nonpareil, dream
"no woman could be the ideal he imagined for himself"

There should be no limits to speech, only actions.

And if someone's speech doth offend thee, simply fling muck on them at the nearest opportunity, and run away laughing.

Speaking is an action.

Unrestricted. Otherwise, you get places like Britainistan where you go to jail for "offending muslims".

I think it would be an oxymoron, I wish people would just stop with the virtue signalling and admit they simply don't find freedom of speech a good idea instead of trying to twist the concept around.

if it's FREEdom of speech it can't obviously be limited
also, if you limit it a "little" you're limiting it all since everyone has different limits, so to keep the logic and following everyone's limitation you would have to abolish free speech as a whole

>If the later, what limits should there be?
Slander/Libel, Harassment, Perjury, Direct conspiracy or Incitement to crime. Maybe a couple of other situations

Forgot false advertising and contractual obligations.

also Fraud/ conning. There's actually quite a few instances where it's justified

What kind of autocrat's propaganda have you been watching?

Interesting. I notice it is easy to legislate the first but not the second, that requires maturity from the public. Usually lip service is given to free speech but the second always gets violated

>tfw britcucks actually exist
We should have annexed you poor fucks after ww2

TIL america doesn't have laws for libel harrassment perjury or conspiracy

What makes living a right?

absolutely unrestricted

In a world where humans are incapable of getting mad, freedom of speech would go anyway.

lol wat

>pride parades should be banned

the eternal hetero strikes again

This is pretty much it.

All rights have to have a practical limit for the cohesion of any realistic society.

Clear and Present Danger is an obvious example of this, as it relates to freedom of speech.

No offense but gay pride parades are mostly responsible for continuing the stereotype that homosexuals are sex crazed degenerates. I understand the importance of being proud of your history, to openly show who you are in te face of hate, but eventually the pride parades came to be an identity in themselves, where a person would identify first as gay as opposed to being a lawyer/doctor/ whatever who happens to be gay. It's natural, there's nothin really to be ashamed or proud of.

To be fair, such plain flaunting of sexuality is nowhere near limited to gays or gay pride parades.

You have to walk a fine if youre going to say gay pride parades are offensive but not hold flashing tits at Mardi Gras to the same standard.

>he believes in the liberty meme
WEW lad

Fair point. I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn between freedom of expression and lewd acts in public, it might have something to do with showing primary vs secondary sex organs, I guess that's up for the courts to decide.