What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[LeftEyeNine]

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ? I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ? Where does it start and end (if it does) ? And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable? Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ? Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

What do you think ?

[Duke Malcolm]

It should have no limits other than slander and personal offence (that is, something directed at someone with intent to offed). It is quite an old tradition in the House of Commons, but recently and internationally, it allows to people's views coming across. In those countries without it, we know little of what their people want, what their attitudes are to their government.

However, people should still be polite, and practise the rules of polite conversation (i.e. no politics, religion, children, talking of one's own virtues or another's vices) when meeting someone new, or over dinner, or somesuch occasion.

[Ja'chyra]

I think it's an urban myth

[LeftEyeNine]

I think it's an urban myth

If not sarcastic, I'm close to the idea of yours. But why is it so then? What are your reasons behind this ?

[Redleg]

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

[Kagemusha]

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Redleg hit the nail in the head.Nuff said.

[Soulforged]

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Evaluating the general situation in your country at the time, would you reasonabily state that there's an ample freedom of speech? I'm just curious about things I've heard about the U.S. in these last months.

I've nothing to add to the topic, you've said it just fine, except for the second part of the second parragraph of your first post, wich I disagree with.

[Ja'chyra]

If not sarcastic, I'm close to the idea of yours. But why is it so then? What are your reasons behind this ?

True freedom of speech would entitle anyone to say whatever they liked, whether it was offensive to others or not, and we all know that this is prohibited by law (race relations, discrimination acts).

So we have partial freedom, and the amount decreases with every ridiculous law brought in.

[LeftEyeNine]

Well you seem disturbed with the laws brought in. If so, care to talk about the possibility of the true Freedom Of Speech happening ?

[yesdachi]

True freedom of speech would entitle anyone to say whatever they liked, whether it was offensive to others or not, and we all know that this is prohibited by law (race relations, discrimination acts).

So we have partial freedom, and the amount decreases with every ridiculous law brought in.

I would be ok with true freedom of speech if there were also a freedom of prosecution for retaliation to ones free speech. Slander someone and they beat you’re a$$ without punishment. Hummmm might work… but probably not. There really does need to be limitations, but some of the new/proposed laws are absurd and completely go against the very nature of the concept of free speech.

[Pindar]

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ? I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ? Where does it start and end (if it does) ? And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable? Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ? Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

What do you think ?

Hello,

-Freedom of Speech is fundamentally a political act.
-The practical use is to serve as a demonstrative limit on the power of the government.
-It starts and ends with the legislative process meaning: the citizenry determine the boundaries and those boundaries remain amenable to the same. This applies from the passage of constitutional provisions to local jurisdiction.
-Provocative speech, dispisal of the government and/or national self loathing is traditionally acceptable up to actually advocacy of armed overthrow of the state insofar as the state is a representative organ.

-Proponents of democracy typically see the base notion of free speech as a universal insofar as a person is not entirely identified by his or her citizenry and is thereby naturally empowered irrespective of the state. Even so, the particular parameters of expression may be defined by the legislative process noted above.

[x-dANGEr]

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ?

The ability to express your opinions with no fear, that is what I hear from the Western world's presidents. Though, IMO, it is the ability to express your opinion freely as long as it doesn't insult, or hurt others' beliefs.

I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ?

Not much; if you ask me. It is just an excuse for governments to say "XXXXX is a free country, it allows freedom of speech", that the concept gets too traditional to even have an effect.

Where does it start and end (if it does) ?

It surely should end before the borders of insulting others' beliefs.

And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable?

Depends on how far they go, but at some point, it surely is not acceptable.

Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ?

no Idea.

Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

I think it should be redefined within distinct cultures, knowing that each one has different beliefs, behaviours and standards.