Does Free Speech Actually Exist? Has It Ever?

[Dreamer]

As it’s a label often thrown around by many people of both the Left and Right, particularly when an election year is afoot, whether that’s to protect free speech, to silence hate speech, etc. do you believe speech should actually be free, should society as a whole allow a free exchange of open ideas and thought no matter the subject matter? Or is this all wishful thinking and in fact some speech should never be allowed? Who determines this?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

People and organizations have a tendency to self-censor to varying degrees, so I'm not sure. It's also difficult to discern the line between self-censorship and just being sensitive to others' feelings; I think sometimes the two overlap, though that's not always a bad thing. The reason I am focused on self-censorship, is that I feel it's potentially more insidious and dangerous than when people attempt to censor others, the latter of which is much easier to point out and fight back against. What concerns me the most is the danger of people being blackmailed or intimidated into self-censorship.

I believe in free speech with the exception of threats and yelling fire in a crowded theater. I consider myself left wing. Many of my left wing friends support levels of censorship that I am uncomfortable with, but then many right wingers have also proven themselves to be very "snowflakey" when they dislike the message or even the way something is said. So I don't see this as a cause exclusive to any one ideology or demographic. I believe it affects us all and we need to be very careful with the precedents we set, lest those made with good intentions one day might the next day be used in more insidious ways.

Sorry, I didn't really answer the question.


EDITED: I removed the part about being for absolute free speech, as I wouldn't want people to have a right to yell 'fire' free of consequence.

 

[Jaq]

No, no, and no.

 

[Lark]

Free speech has always existed and always will.

But so does consequences. And they always will too.

 

[Dreamer]

Free speech has always existed and always will.

But so does consequences. And they always will too.

This is a great point to note, in that “free speech” DOES exist, but whether or not you will receive consequences is another factor. Or, I guess a way to look at it is, as basic and essential as the old saying goes, “for any action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, a way to look at this thought is to gauge what exactly those “reactions” are to said speech.

Interesting!

 

[Dreamer]

People and organizations have a tendency to self-censor to varying degrees, so I'm not sure. It's also difficult to discern the line between self-censorship and just being sensitive to others' feelings; I think sometimes the two overlap, though that's not always a bad thing. The reason I am focused on self-censorship, is that I feel it's potentially more insidious and dangerous than when people attempt to censor others, the latter of which is much easier to point out and fight back against. What concerns me the most is the danger of people being blackmailed or intimidated into self-censorship.

I believe in absolute free speech, and consider myself left wing. Many of my left wing friends support levels of censorship that I am uncomfortable with, but then many right wingers have also proven themselves to be very "snowflakey" when they dislike the message or even the way something is said. So I don't see this as a cause exclusive to any one ideology or demographic. I believe it affects us all and we need to be very careful with the precedents we set, lest those made with good intentions one day might the next day be used in more insidious ways.

Sorry, I didn't really answer the question.

No need to apologize, I LOVE where you took this question! And I agree, in the sense that, in order to begin answering this question, it’s key to take it to an even baser level or, what speech do we “allow” ourselves? How much of a personal barrier is one’s own limitation to speak their own thoughts?

For me at least, a large proponent surrounding this basic idea, and on a broader perspective, is the notion of consequence as @Lark brought up, and weighing whether that potential consequence is worth the message being shared, to me, is where I draw my own individual line.

I will almost always take any question someone might pose as seriously as they intend without immediately shooting the thought down as “improper” or morally wrong, but as for my own free speech in what I would self-restrict or not is whether some thought is worth the potential argument or disagreement with someone that may ensue. So like, do I feel confident I myself am knowledgeable enough on a topic to take a stance, am I prepared for a potential emotional outburst, etc. For me, my self-imposed restriction to free speech is almost always weighed more by the potential efforts required following some statement, rather than restricting something based on a social moral acceptance or whathaveyou.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Free speech is imo a strong right and I think short of making threats to others or being disruptive to others it should be allowed. Free speech is the one right that all of us should enjoy no one should be persecuted for having an opinion. Like sure some opinions are assholeish like say I was a Holocaust denier (Which I am not just a example) I don't think it should be illegal to deny the Holocaust happened even though its assholeish but say harassing Jews on the street and screaming *IT NEVE3R HAPPENED* is harassment imo and shouldn't be allowed. Same goes for anti Western Islamist types or Westboro Church folks they have as much right as anyone else to hate the West or the various groups but violence or threats is a no no.

Denying freedom of speech is a snowball like one day it could be well intentioned (No expression of anti LGBT for an example) but it could snowball into other things like not being allowed to be critical of anything at all. Plus by giving everyone the right to freedom of speech everyone also has the freedom to call them out so all is fair. Like I have the right to call the Westboro church a bunch of lunatics .

 

[Mole]

Although free speech is part of a healthy democracy and healthy individuals, free speech is not absolute. Free speech is limited by other rights, by defamation law, by anti-discrimination law, by the criminal law, and by common courtesy.

Today free speech is opposed by cancel culture, by Islamic Jihad, and by authoritarian States.

 

[Lark]

Although free speech is part of a healthy democracy and healthy individuals, free speech is not absolute. Free speech is limited by other rights, by defamation law, by anti-discrimination law, by the criminal law, and by common courtesy.

Today free speech is opposed by cancel culture, by Islamic Jihad, and by authoritarian States.

What about money Mole, without sponsorship absolutely none of those things you mention would matter or could even exist.

 

[Mole]

What about money Mole, without sponsorship absolutely none of those things you mention would matter or could even exist.

It's true, Lark, that in unequal societies, those with more money have the loudest voices, after all 'money talks'.

However in a liberal democratic society we can start to move towards a more equal society. Education is one path. The country with the best education system in the world is Finland, and they have no private schools. In Oz we have State funded private schools, and in fact I was a private school boy. And Australian students are falling behind in education, and we are looking to improve our education system, and a good place to look is Finland.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

I wonder whether this has something to do with the situation in France.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Although free speech is part of a healthy democracy and healthy individuals, free speech is not absolute. Free speech is limited by other rights, by defamation law, by anti-discrimination law, by the criminal law, and by common courtesy.

Today free speech is opposed by cancel culture, by Islamic Jihad, and by authoritarian States.

It’s not Islamic governments and cancel culture censoring streaming services’ films and shows. It’s the companies themselves. More and more we are seeing this type of censorship, not just with streaming, although that’s probably the most prominent. Businesses deciding what is or isn’t appropriate based on their desired bottom lines. So much for the liberal free market ensuring free speech

 

[Red Memories]

you believe speech should actually be free, should society as a whole allow a free exchange of open ideas and thought no matter the subject matter?: Yes. If you dislike the art, the speech, or etc. you can choose to either attempt to converse or you can exit the conversation. Just because it exists does not mean you have to participate. But I feel I also have no right to suggest others cannot. I can state my opinion and suggest they should think differently though.

Or is this all wishful thinking and in fact some speech should never be allowed?: There's a lot of muddy water to this. While I may personally feel some speech or ideas should not be allowed I still would not strive for them. Nevertheless, I value the right to to have and follow whatever whim moreso than I value the ability to tell someone they in fact cannot do or speak this way. We can easily have an equal opposite reaction to the thing which we also have a free right to do. All actions have an equal opposite reaction.

Who determines this?: I would hope no one. No more book burnings. I do not like the nitpicking and destruction of differing opinions or such. If someone believes differently than you, you should be able to question and learn rather than merely assume that someone is an intolerant asshole for not having your exact perspective on life.

While I do not like all free speech, I think all free speech should be allowed.

 

[Totenkindly]

People shouldn't really conflate the free speech of First Amendment rights (which disallows government restriction on speech) vs free speech as in "Getting to say anything in my mind without consequence in the public sphere."

It’s not Islamic governments and cancel culture censoring streaming services’ films and shows. It’s the companies themselves. More and more we are seeing this type of censorship, not just with streaming, although that’s probably the most prominent. Businesses deciding what is or isn’t appropriate based on their desired bottom lines. So much for the liberal free market ensuring free speech

Essentially it seems an outgrowth of corporations being considered people, but they're operating from a financial perspective... which is similar to what we're getting now from the gov deciding a particular financial line is more important than the health of a percentage of constituents or at least choosing to promote it that way.

In general, you'd think they can have a set of values and culture (even government agencies have this kind of thing -- we were just given a set of "agency values" this month, based on conversations with the employee base), but it all gets muddied when a corporation is very large and/or dominates a market so that they have undue influence to them impose values even indirectly, stifling conversation. It gets pretty grey in there.

 

[ceecee]

People shouldn't really conflate the free speech of First Amendment rights (which disallows government restriction on speech) vs free speech as in "Getting to say anything in my mind without consequence in the public sphere."

But they do, regularly. And the people that appear most concerned with free speech are only concerned with their free speech.

Essentially it seems an outgrowth of corporations being considered people, but they're operating from a financial perspective... which is similar to what we're getting now from the gov deciding a particular financial line is more important than the health of a percentage of constituents or at least choosing to promote it that way.

Oh it's definitely more important than any human life. I don't think they are pretending at this point which is good - it's much easier to deal with something vile when you can see it.

 

[Mole]

It's not Islamic governments and cancel culture censoring streaming services' films and shows. It's the companies themselves. More and more we are seeing this type of censorship, not just with streaming, although that's probably the most prominent. Businesses deciding what is or isn't appropriate based on their desired bottom lines. So much for the liberal free market ensuring free speech

Yes, you are right, the free market does not ensure free speech. In the USA free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Universal Decision of Human Rights, and in Australia free speech is garanteeo by the Australian High Court and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And free speech is protected by eternal vigilance.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yes, you are right, the free market does not ensure free speech. In the USA free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Universal Decision of Human Rights, and in Australia free speech is garanteeo by the Australian High Court and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And free speech is protected by eternal vigilance.

But the problem is, as others have pointed out, that this is a real grey area. Even in the USA it happens. Was it Disney plus who censored Darryl Hannah’s backside in Splash? Technically they own it, it’s their intellectual property (a stupid concept we need to revisit) but we have to wonder what about the people originally involved in collaborating and creating that film? People made similar arguments about Lucas changing aspects of his old films—were they solely his creations to change? What about his ex wife who was the editor, what about Larry Kasdan, what about Kershner and Marquand, and the team who did the practical f/x he decided to remove or replace?

We’re going to see this happen more with streaming and media companies going back and erasing or altering what are cultural artifacts, and unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be a clear cut thing we can take to the higher courts.

 

[J. Starke]

Freedom of speech is not absolute but should definitely be maximized. Drawing the Prophet should be protected free speech (freedom of expression).

 

[anticlimatic]

People shouldn't really conflate the free speech of First Amendment rights (which disallows government restriction on speech) vs free speech as in "Getting to say anything in my mind without consequence in the public sphere."

People also shouldn't really conflate free speech as it pertains to pedantic law (which cites and parses arbitrary "rules" from govs/corps) vs free speech as it pertains to general philosophy and psychology, as in "censorship of speech is a gateway to censorship of thought, and the best progress humanity can make is via psychological innovation expansion and expression, which can only grow when allowed the room."

 

[Maou]

‘IF LIBERTY MEANS ANYTHING AT ALL, IT MEANS THE RIGHT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO HEAR’ – ALEXANDER BUTCHER