Freedom of Speech

Should Freedom of Speech EVER be restricted? If so, at what point?

>Incitement to crime?

>Incitement to violence?

>Harassment in real life?

>Stalking?


Should it be restricted? And if so, when?

Fire! Fire! Fire, fire, fire… Now you’ve heard it. Not shouted in a crowded theatre, admittedly, as I realize I seem now to have shouted it in the Hogwarts dining room. But the point is made.

Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.

It is very often forgotten that what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish-speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing President Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into this sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish-speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape.

In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish-speaking socialists, who were jailed by the excellent and over-praised judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, were the real fire fighters, were the ones who were shouting fire when there really was fire in a very crowded theatre, indeed.

And who is to decide? Well, keep that question if you would — ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, I hope I may say comrades and friends — before your minds.

I exempt myself from the speaker’s kind offer of protection that was so generously proffered at the opening of this evening. Anyone who wants to say anything abusive about or to me is quite free to do so, and welcome in fact — at their own risk.

But before they do that, they must have taken, as I’m sure we all should, a short refresher course in the classic texts on this matter, which are: John Milton’s Areopagitica — “Areopagitica” being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression; Thomas Paine’s introduction to the Age of Reason; and I would say John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty.

"Everyone knows the fatous verdict"

No, not ever.

>Incitement to crime?
>Incitement to violence?
I think incitement, just like the classic "FIRE!" example, shouldn't be preemptively forbidden, but if a clear and *direct* causal link can be established between someone's words and someone else's harm, then the speaker should be held at least partially accountable. But again, not preemptively.

>But again, not preemptively.

I agree with this and allowed me to clarify some things.


How would you write it into law though that something is illegal or wrong but not pre-emptively wrong?

By declaring it not a crime per se. Saying inciting words by itself should not be a crime, but if you specifically incite a mob to kill someone, and they actually do it, the absolute madmen, then, and *only* then should you be held partially accountable as an accessory to the crime.

What did Charles Manson technically do and how is it that much worse than this?

I'd say never, but I really wish we could ban socialism/communism.

>banning things you dont like

sjw

Yes

Blasphemy, insulting the Pope, other clergy, or the Church, insulting the monarch or the royal family, incitement to violence, uttering threats, encouraging treason, or perjury.

Of course it should be restricted.

le catholic conservative

Stirner would be pro complete freedom of speech, retard

It already is limited thanks to context that people so readily overlook. Saying you want to kill the president or crying wolf isn't held to the same standard as saying "fuck minorities". True freedom of speech is essentially saying whatever you want without reprieve. You tell me.

Freedom of speech can be tolerable as in individually saying whatever you feel like outside for instance but t.v. stations and media companies should be liable to being shut down if they push a corrupted narrative repeatedly.

Who defines 'corruptive'?

No im pretty sure he mocks liberals who think all speech should be sacred.

speech being sacred and individualist expression are entirely different things, retard

You dont even understand what he means

Libel, slander and disseminating restricted information are all reasonably restricted

Who defines 'Libel'?

>if I just silence anyone who agrees with me then I'm right by default

The courts

Well actually the legislature, but the courts decide whether any particular case counts

How does a court define 'Libel'?

I just they dont, the legislature does

And how does one stop a legislature from being lobbied or being corrupted through monetary influence that has an interest in 'Libel' being defined in a particular way?

All the usual ways states try to weed out corruption

Like half truths and blatant misinformation. If they make a few mistakes that's understandable but right now the media all across the world lies about happenings all day.

Why would those who benefit from such corruption try to stop it?

Again, all the usual reasons why corruption is stopped in modern states

>all the usual reasons why corruption is stopped in modern states
So, none at all then

Im not sure what kind of african shithole you live in, but in most western nations corruption is pretty minimal

>but in most western nations corruption is pretty minimal

Oh boy, brother.

You do NOT know how far the rabbithole goes.

What do you think "corruption" means?

Do you really want mainstream media reporters starting every sentence with the word swim?

There are exactly two types of people with regards to freedom of speech.

There are people who don't really understand what it means, and then there are Americans.

Falsehoods that cause demonstrable harm to a person's livelihood and/or quality of life. Same with slander, only it's spoken rather than published. Both are categorized under the term defamation. The key is that it has to be lies.

>let's put fake lines around the German chancellor and treat them as facts
>have to pull lies out of your ass to make a point
/pol/ is beyond pathetic.

...

But none of that is incorrect. Those raids did happen and they did indeed concern the expression of illegal opinions. The worst you could say about that image is that the phrase "illegal opinion" hasn't literally been spoken by Merkel herself, which she wouldn't even have to anyway. That's Maas' job after all.

I think calling them "illegal opinions". There's a difference between a thought which citizens aren't allowed to have, and a statement they're not allowed to make in a public place.

*is misleading.

...

Those raids happened because of unconstitutional and illegal actions, not because of "illegal opinions". Opinions are not banned in Germany.
Stop twisting facts and tearing single aspects out of context in order to satisfy your autistic ideology.

I dont follow. Did something happen there?

It should be illegal to lie.

r8 my oc

Very shit
Pretty good

what about NDAs?
If you agree to not say something under a legal contract or somethingI don't think its wrong to punish you if you do say it