Free Speech or Censorship?

[bamberfishcake]

Far-Right Influencer, Social Media Influencer, Twitter Troll or Dangerous Misinformation Spreader?

Sentenced to 6 months for a Hilary Clinton meme. suggesting voters could vote by phone.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Some say the Russiagate scandal itself was misinformation.

More censorship is on the way across the world.

Though I disagree with the endless incarceration of Julian Assange, I kind of understand the severity and repercussions of revealing state secrets, but should this guy really be in jail for a meme?

 

[maxd]

If it was a meme with bogus information on how to wash your dog no one would care. But this was messing with the voting procedure and anyone even vaguely interested in staying out of court should have known that was a bad idea. Also, it was established that he had an agenda to mess with voting access of black voters who were apparently the target of his disinformation. Sounds like he got what he deserved.

Free Speech is often taken to mean "I can say whatever I want regardless of who gets hurt and get away with it". I respectfully suggest that they're not the same thing. Reasonable limits on what one can say in public is as much a part of the right to Free Speech as the desire to have one's voice heard: very few things in life are as absolute and immune to interpretation as people like to think.

- Max

 

[interlog]

Free Speech is often taken to mean "I can say whatever I want regardless of who gets hurt and get away with it". I respectfully suggest that they're not the same thing. Reasonable limits on what one can say in public is as much a part of the right to Free Speech as the desire to have one's voice heard: very few things in life are as absolute and immune to interpretation as people like to think.

- Max

Surely this is common sense? Is to OK to spout hate and incite violence against others when that breaks the law? Does free speech trump the law?

Look at, for example, what happened to Dutch politician Geert Wilders who during an election campaign said something about Moroccans in the Netherlands that was proven in Court to be illegal. Despite him claiming it was free speech and him being a politician who arguably can say more controversial things (especially if within the parliament building) he was found to be wrong.

 

[maxd]

IMHO we are living through a time when there's not enough "common" in "common sense". All sorts of hateful, destructive, racist, misogynist, violence inciting, even treasonous stuff gets passed off as "free speech" by those believe that their lives would be enriched by suppressing whichever minority or race or gender they decide they don't like. "Oh it's just free speech" they are quick to say. But of course whenever someone points out that "free speech" does not and should not mean "any speech" they are suddenly the problem and need to be shouted down and bullied into silence.

My observation has been that those who can't accept the concept of "reasonable limits" on such things are the ones who are most likely to be exceptionally unreasonable in their words and actions towards others and most eager to fob their hateful rants off as "free speech". When ignorance and belligerence are not only acceptable but applauded and school-yard insults are what passes for meaningful discourse we are in a troubled state; if "common sense" was a lot more common I suspect many of the problems of our day would evaporate in a heartbeat.

 

[goatwack]

The right to Free Speech does not mean free speech without responsibility, a concept seemingly lost on today's society, whereby everyone must acknowledge one's own-held 'truths' based on their feelings.

I'd like to say common sense is still a thing that governed most people's lives, but it's a relic of a bygone age, replaced with whatever applies to them. And if politically aligned to the right side of history, you'd be surprised just how much 'free speech' is allowed to fly, in the most stunningly hypocritical way!

Those of a common sense persuasion would still be able to tell apart the persistent and targeted belligerence and hateful intent, as well as blatantly homophobic, racist and misogynistic slurs, I'm sure.

And yet we have written speech in 'World 2' aka the internet, where opinions and context can be interpreted any number of ways and is often misconstrued. You'd find if hearing this person in 'real life' that they'd be completely different to how they reveal themselves online.

Westerners have had it pretty easy in saying what they want under the guise of Free Speech, and naturally that's been exploited by those wishing to have carte blanche to spout what they wish, to the obvious detriment of rational discourse. And so governments find themselves trying to rein it all in, with censorship galore. Gone is pushing the envelope, satire and subtlety, although parody's alive and kicking, as most of today's zeitgeist is indistinguishable from parody!

Are people allowed to hold their own prejudices and dislike of other people? Yes they are

Do they have the right to share those in an informal setting? Yes

Ought they to grab a loudspeaker and convey that to the masses? No

Clearly there is a massive gulf between ordinary speech and online, which are too varied to classify as 'one', however much people wish it to be so.

We had people congregate in London to remonstrate the Israeli invasion of Gaza, voiced by 100,000 pro-Palestinian supporters. I could take exception to that, as well as open displays of ripping down posters of missing Israeli children, whereby 'freedom of expression' is all well and good.

Amazing how Free Speech works sometimes, eh?