First Amendment Discussion Thread (Freedom of speech/expression)

What is your opinion on free speech and freedom of expression?

  • All types of speech and expression should be legal, no exceptions.

  • All speech and expression should be legal, but not which that is threatening to others (current 1A)

  • Most speech should be legal, but there should be guidelines which define illegal hate speech.

  • Speech and expression should be heavily regulated and limited.

  • Other (please specify)


Results are only viewable after voting.
3,000
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
3. Allowing censorship, basically the removal of free speech, brings us one step closer to becoming a communist state.
You seem to be buying into the fear-mongering tactics of the current right-wing, eh? Bottom line is, hate speech should not be free speech, therefore free speech would not be threatened or taken away. What I want censored is racial, LGBTphobic, and religious slurs, and harmful ideologies such as Nazism and neo-confederatism and white supremacy, etc, since they directly dehumanize and outrage marginalized groups, which have for centuries been fighting an uphill battle for equity. That being said, extreme ideologies/opinions, conspiracies, or even factually incorrect viewpoints which do not trivialize those of the oppressed (believing Earth is flat, believing the moon landing is fake, loving Trump, etc) should not be censored.

Why do you feel so threatened by hate speech being censored and made illegal? Assuming you do not use hateful speech and not a white supremacist, it wouldn't affect you at all.

And if you think communism is largely based on around eliminating hate, you are mistaken beyond belief.
 

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,757
United States
Anoka, MN
Why do you feel so threatened by hate speech being censored and made illegal?

Because the government rarely relinquishes their power once they have it. And once they have some, they will always want more.

it wouldn't affect you at all.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
 

ScottPye20

Powered by Nulon
Premium
11,631
Australia
Melbourne
ScottPye20
You seem to be buying into the fear-mongering tactics of the current right-wing, eh? Bottom line is, hate speech should not be free speech, therefore free speech would not be threatened or taken away. What I want censored is racial, LGBTphobic, and religious slurs, and harmful ideologies such as Nazism and neo-confederatism and white supremacy, etc, since they directly dehumanize and outrage marginalized groups, which have for centuries been fighting an uphill battle for equity. That being said, extreme ideologies/opinions, conspiracies, or even factually incorrect viewpoints which do not trivialize those of the oppressed (believing Earth is flat, believing the moon landing is fake, loving Trump, etc) should not be censored.

Why do you feel so threatened by hate speech being censored and made illegal? Assuming you do not use hateful speech and not a white supremacist, it wouldn't affect you at all.

And if you think communism is largely based on around eliminating hate, you are mistaken beyond belief.
I agree with what he is saying. It's not fear-mongering, it's true. Are you not seeing what China does on a regular basis? We can't end up like them because it would destroy our western values. Also, how have you linked hate speech with that comment? He wasn't stating that hate speech is free speech; I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
 
3,000
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
He wasn't stating that hate speech is free speech; I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
Technically speaking, hate speech is an example of free speech since it (sadly) is legal in the United states. This includes racial slurs, Nazi/KKK propaganda, etc. What I'm saying is, this type of speech should not be classed as free speech and instead as an illegal act.
 

ScottPye20

Powered by Nulon
Premium
11,631
Australia
Melbourne
ScottPye20
Technically speaking, hate speech is an example of free speech since it (sadly) is legal in the United states. This includes racial slurs, Nazi/KKK propaganda, etc. What I'm saying is, this type of speech should not be classed as free speech and instead as an illegal act.
Yeah OK I'm with you on that one but there's a fine line between hate speech and opinion that sounds like hate speech when it's just a valid claim.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
Technically speaking, hate speech is an example of free speech since it (sadly) is legal in the United states. This includes racial slurs, Nazi/KKK propaganda, etc. What I'm saying is, this type of speech should not be classed as free speech and instead as an illegal act.
Do you understand, even remotely where everyone else is coming from?
 
3,000
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Yeah OK I'm with you on that one but there's a fine line between hate speech and opinion that sounds like hate speech when it's just a valid claim.
Confused as to what you mean by this. Would you mind to provide a hypothetical example?

Do you understand, even remotely where everyone else is coming from?
Yes. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm unable to comprehend.
 

ScottPye20

Powered by Nulon
Premium
11,631
Australia
Melbourne
ScottPye20
Confused as to what you mean by this. Would you mind to provide a hypothetical example?
For example, saying that adulterers, fornicators, drunks, liars and gays should "repent" is not hate speech but rather a personal viewpoint. Saying that you want to kill all gays is hate speech, but some people have declared that telling gays to "repent" is hate speech. The guy who said it is a devout Christian who plays rugby so shutting him down based on his religious beliefs is denying free speech.
 
3,000
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
For example, saying that adulterers, fornicators, drunks, liars and gays should "repent" is not hate speech but rather a personal viewpoint. Saying that you want to kill all gays is hate speech, but some people have declared that telling gays to "repent" is hate speech. The guy who said it is a devout Christian who plays rugby so shutting him down based on his religious beliefs is denying free speech.
Thanks 👍 the first wouldn't be hate speech but the second example clearly is.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
For example, saying that adulterers, fornicators, drunks, liars and gays should "repent" is not hate speech but rather a personal viewpoint. Saying that you want to kill all gays is hate speech, but some people have declared that telling gays to "repent" is hate speech. The guy who said it is a devout Christian who plays rugby so shutting him down based on his religious beliefs is denying free speech.
I would agree with you on the Israel Falou case but Rugby Australia is a Private company so they have no obligation to protect free speech.

I do think that the Common trend of Companies cracking down on speech they don't like(which all seems to be from a same or similar viewpoint)a worry though, but I have no answer to solve it.
 

zzz_pt

Premium
8,171
Germany
Porto living in Hamburg
zzz_pt
You seem to be buying into the fear-mongering tactics of the current right-wing, eh? Bottom line is, hate speech should not be free speech, therefore free speech would not be threatened or taken away. What I want censored is racial, LGBTphobic, and religious slurs, and harmful ideologies such as Nazism and neo-confederatism and white supremacy, etc, since they directly dehumanize and outrage marginalized groups, which have for centuries been fighting an uphill battle for equity. That being said, extreme ideologies/opinions, conspiracies, or even factually incorrect viewpoints which do not trivialize those of the oppressed (believing Earth is flat, believing the moon landing is fake, loving Trump, etc) should not be censored.

Why do you feel so threatened by hate speech being censored and made illegal? Assuming you do not use hateful speech and not a white supremacist, it wouldn't affect you at all.

And if you think communism is largely based on around eliminating hate, you are mistaken beyond belief.

Why do you feel so sure of yourself to think banning specific slurs / ideologies (would love to see how you'd do that) would the best solution? When has that ever worked?

I'd recommend listening to the recent conversation between Sam Harris and Ricky Gervais on the topic of slurs, outrage mobs and censorship.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
An excellent video that addresses alot of concern I have and what I assume others do as well:


I Recommend @GranTurNismo to watch this in Full, your views are talked about in this.
 
Last edited:
3,000
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Public nudity is not legal free speech. But is that because it is threatening?
Not threatening, but rather indecent. Key word is "public". When in public, it's safe to assume that children will almost always be seen, and they should not be exposed to overt nudity. Even still, people generally don't want to see nude bodies as they shop or commute to work. It's the same reason why defecating in public is illegal. No one is threatened, but it is indecent and inappropriate, and people don't want to see it. Just like (sane) people don't want to hear racial slurs and see extremist propaganda in public. It's inappropriate and should not be legal.

Why do you feel so sure of yourself to think banning specific slurs / ideologies (would love to see how you'd do that) would the best solution? When has that ever worked?
Because it would protect, which in turn would empower, marginalized groups, which have been put down by racism, anti-semitism/islam, and homophobia for generations. I feel as if this is being blown way out of proportion. All I'm saying is, racial slurs and extremist propaganda should be illegal. I'm not saying that discourse in general, and even controversial/taboo/false viewpoints (that are not threatening), should be jeopardized. As I assume no one in this thread uses racial slurs or is a Neo-nazi or something of the sort, I can't see how outlining and banning clearly hateful expression is so threatening. Doing this is not communism, it's not fascism, and it's not "the government just trying to take control". It's simply eliminating bigotry.

If harmful ideologies/extremist groups were banned from practicing these views in public, these groups would not exist in the first place, therefore they would not be defacing social justice protests and attacking, or even killing people in the streets. White supremacy, Neo-Nazism, and neo-confederatism, among other viewpoints of the such, should be banned and those who wish to showcase these views in public should be punished. Let's look at the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa, two examples of extremist hate groups that formed after Trump took office, and are popular enough to have an influence on American politics. These groups promote white supremacy, misogyny, anti-LGBT views, islamophobia, and peddles racist conspiracy theories such as "White Genocide". They also encourage rioting and political violence, often protesting social justice protests. These groups, in short, threaten marginalized people. What I'm saying is, if such groups were legally not allowed to exist, as showcasing these extreme views in public would be illegal, then they would not be able to cause violence and boast their bigotry. Therefore, social justice gatherings such as Black Lives Matter, Pride Month, the Womens' March, all of which represent and empower marginalized groups, would be able to spread activism without being threatened by bigots.

Such restrictions on hateful speech have worked in Sweden, for example. As many Muslim migrants continue to relocate to Sweden, Islamophobia has been rising. In Sweden, white Swedes are in power and the Muslim migrants are marginalized. These people, seeking a higher quality of life, should not be greeted with Islamophobia when they move to Sweden, which is why the Swedish government restricts Islamophobic speech and expression in public. This way, Muslims in Sweden are free to express their culture without bigotry interfering, and white Swedes will be more inclined to accept and embrace Muslims calling Sweden home.
 

Dotini

Premium
15,469
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
Not threatening, but rather indecent. Key word is "public". When in public, it's safe to assume that children will almost always be seen, and they should not be exposed to overt nudity. Even still, people generally don't want to see nude bodies as they shop or commute to work. It's the same reason why defecating in public is illegal. No one is threatened, but it is indecent and inappropriate, and people don't want to see it. Just like (sane) people don't want to hear racial slurs and see extremist propaganda in public. It's inappropriate and should not be legal.
The wording of the poll in the OP option 2 uses the word threatening; no mention is made of inappropriate, but it is addressed in current law.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
Such restrictions on hateful speech have worked in Sweden, for example. As many Muslim migrants continue to relocate to Sweden, Islamophobia has been rising. In Sweden, white Swedes are in power and the Muslim migrants are marginalized. These people, seeking a higher quality of life, should not be greeted with Islamophobia when they move to Sweden, which is why the Swedish government restricts Islamophobic speech and expression in public. This way, Muslims in Sweden are free to express their culture without bigotry interfering, and white Swedes will be more inclined to accept and embrace Muslims calling Sweden home.

When you restrict speech all your doing is empowering those who feel like their speech is being marginalised, The idea of restriction of speech and saying it ''works'' is incredibly shortsighted and doesn't take into account what is happening with the groups who have had their speech marginalised.

Allowing the Market place of ideas to flourish Gives society the ability to address these things, restricting it pulls the rug over it.
 

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,757
United States
Anoka, MN
Such restrictions on hateful speech have worked in Sweden, for example. As many Muslim migrants continue to relocate to Sweden, Islamophobia has been rising.
and white Swedes will be more inclined to accept and embrace Muslims calling Sweden home.

I'm confused, which one is it? :confused:
 
3,000
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
When you restrict speech all your doing is empowering those who feel like their speech is being marginalised, The idea of restriction of speech and saying it ''works'' is incredibly shortsighted and doesn't take into account what is happening with the groups who have had their speech marginalised.
But I don't quite get how that would be true... if these people knew that there are laws which would prosecute them for their hateful speech and expression, wouldn't that make them not want to speak up. I bet many of these people would be too cowardly to broadcast their hatred in public if they knew they could get arrested. Let's say for example, smoking cigarettes, a legal activity, becomes banned. A ban on cigarettes isn't going to make smokers smoke more out of anger; the majority of them would stop smoking in fear that they could get arrested.

I'm confused, which one is it? :confused:
It's both. There are both Islamophobic Swedes and acceptant Swedes. Limiting hateful speech towards Muslims is certainly a good start, but it won't solve the entire problem. There will still be Islamophobes in Sweden even if they can't voice their hatred. Native Swedes should be taught how to integrate Muslims into their society and respect their culture, so that these immigrants seem less foreign and threatening to the natives, therefore less native Swedes would be prejudiced towards Muslims. Islamophobia is rooted in fear far more than it is about opposing Islamic ideology; many Islamophobes are simply misinformed about Muslims, buying into stereotypes that they support terrorism, are violent, and do not accept Western culture. They don't realize how similar these people are to themselves, sadly.
 

ScottPye20

Powered by Nulon
Premium
11,631
Australia
Melbourne
ScottPye20
I would agree with you on the Israel Falou case but Rugby Australia is a Private company so they have no obligation to protect free speech.

I do think that the Common trend of Companies cracking down on speech they don't like(which all seems to be from a same or similar viewpoint)a worry though, but I have no answer to solve it.
Well no, Rugby Australia should not be policing it. Nor should other companies like ANZ, who don't have a moral compass in the slightest. Same with the AFL. They are not government institutions and shouldn't have a stance on political issues. They should get on with business.

He hasn't been stopped from playing rugby, I think you're mistaken.
Never said that he was stopped.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
But I don't quite get how that would be true... if these people knew that there are laws which would prosecute them for their hateful speech and expression, wouldn't that make them not want to speak up. I bet many of these people would be too cowardly to broadcast their hatred in public if they knew they could get arrested. Let's say for example, smoking cigarettes, a legal activity, becomes banned. A ban on cigarettes isn't going to make smokers smoke more out of anger; the majority of them would stop smoking in fear that they could get arrested.
First of all smoking isn't speech there is nothing more to smoking then the act of smoking, sure you can ban it or tax it out of existence but then you empower a cheaper counterfeit solution, because all your doing is reducing supply not Demand, we have seen the same thing happen with the war on drugs and it's horrific failure of doing what it's intended.

When you restrict speech who defines what should be restricted, can things that where unintended be also restricted?

Who is the moral authority? What happens if the soo called marginalised groups are not marginalised any more do the laws need to be changed to not give an ''advantage'', if so who would be entrusted to do that?

Well no, Rugby Australia should not be policing it. Nor should other companies like ANZ, who don't have a moral compass in the slightest. Same with the AFL. They are not government institutions and shouldn't have a stance on political issues. They should get on with business.

All they are doing is ''protecting'' their brand, no one has a right to their services, what ''should'' happen is your opinion. They have no legal authority to respect it.
 
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
Well no, Rugby Australia should not be policing it. Nor should other companies like ANZ, who don't have a moral compass in the slightest. Same with the AFL. They are not government institutions and shouldn't have a stance on political issues. They should get on with business.

Would you agree that they own the right to their image and are able to police their own image as they see fit? Do you think that extends to them being able to sack staff/representatives who continue act in ways which go against their mission statements?

Never said that he was stopped.

You said "The guy who said it is a devout Christian who plays rugby so shutting him down based on his religious beliefs is denying free speech". So you were wrong about that too. To recap: he hasn't been stopped from expressing his views, he hasn't been stopped from worshipping, and he hasn't been stopped from playing rugby.

Hard to see why you're so exercised about it.
 

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,757
United States
Anoka, MN
It's both.

See, now I'm even more confused...

Such restrictions on hateful speech have worked in Sweden,

Because here you are saying the laws work.

Islamophobia has been rising.

But here you are saying Islamaphobia in Sweden is on the rise. This would seem to indicate that the laws are not actually working.

and white Swedes will be more inclined to accept and embrace Muslims calling Sweden home.

And here you seem to be stating the endgame, which is apparently getting further away.

So again, what one is it? You keep going on and on about how policing "hate speech" will cure what ales us, yet you also make posts saying the opposite is happening.

I'm also just going to make this one last statement than be done with this debate. You don't solve problems like racism by throwing a blanket over them just like you don't cure an infected wound by simply putting a band-aid on it. It's an ugly problem and the only way to solve it is by actually addressing it. This isn't something you can legislate either, it's something we need to address as a society. Banning certain forms of speech will just force that speech underground, nothing will actually change. However, if instead of attacking people for having these thoughts we make an effort to show them that the people they have such hate for really aren't terrible, we may actually see a noticeable change for the better.
 

ScottPye20

Powered by Nulon
Premium
11,631
Australia
Melbourne
ScottPye20
Would you agree that they own the right to their image and are able to police their own image as they see fit? Do you think that extends to them being able to sack staff/representatives who continue act in ways which go against their mission statements?



You said "The guy who said it is a devout Christian who plays rugby so shutting him down based on his religious beliefs is denying free speech". So you were wrong about that too. To recap: he hasn't been stopped from expressing his views, he hasn't been stopped from worshipping, and he hasn't been stopped from playing rugby.

Hard to see why you're so exercised about it.
Point number one: Not if it impedes on free speech they don't.

Point number two: The backlash was just extraordinary and that's the frustrating part. People were trying to shut him down.
 
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
Point number one: Not if it impedes on free speech they don't.

It doesn't impede his free speech. He can continue to say what he likes. They can continue to choose whether his message is associated with them or not.

Point number two: The backlash was just extraordinary and that's the frustrating part. People were trying to shut him down.

That doesn't change Rugby Australia's right to free speech unless you're suggesting they co-ordinated the backlash?
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
Yes I am suggesting that they did.

Given how Long it took them to come to that decision and the fact it wasn't the first time it happened I got to disagree.

The Media as a Whole combined with Social media would of been the main contribution, as said before ARU are a Business and they have to protect their brand, if you have a large following of the public having their say on this, ARU have to protect their bottom line because their brand serves the Public through entertainment, sure it's not promising seeing Speech curbed but what alternative is there, the nature of free Market is Flawed on this issue and untill it hurts their bottom line by Curbing speech they have no incentive.
 
1,971
United States
Seattle, WA
You seem to be buying into the fear-mongering tactics of the current right-wing, eh? Bottom line is, hate speech should not be free speech, therefore free speech would not be threatened or taken away.

Supporting the First amendment is not "buying into fear-mongering tactics", nice try. I support the COTUS and the first amendment as it is written. It does not need to be diluted or watered down for the sake of a tiny minority of far right wing extremists that no one pays attention to anyway. The risks far outweigh the rewards, there is no logical reason to give the Govt power to regulate speech (if you believe in Democratic Govt).


What I want censored is racial, LGBTphobic, and religious slurs, and harmful ideologies such as Nazism and neo-confederatism and white supremacy, etc, since they directly dehumanize and outrage marginalized groups, which have for centuries been fighting an uphill battle for equity. That being said, extreme ideologies/opinions, conspiracies, or even factually incorrect viewpoints which do not trivialize those of the oppressed (believing Earth is flat, believing the moon landing is fake, loving Trump, etc) should not be censored.

Good for you, but it isn't going to happen. I would like for the world to fart rainbows and have it rain pixie dust and $100 bills on us all, but that isn't going to happen either. There are no half-measures on restricting speech and even if there were, you wouldn't eliminate extremist ideologies, they would just go underground an stew/simmer until they erupt. Furthermore restricting speech is a tenant of a Fascist Govt and that is not who we are as a nation. Mussolini restricted free speech, so did Adolf Hitler. We will not ever follow in those footsteps, nor should we. The first Amendment is the cornerstone of the entire COTUS, it is not negotiable.
 

ScottPye20

Powered by Nulon
Premium
11,631
Australia
Melbourne
ScottPye20
However unlikely it is that every single person who spoke out against his views was asked to do so by Rugby Australia... that's free speech for you.
No they weren't asking people to do so... What am I on about:lol: