Debate: Freedom of Speech

In response to the idea that government should impose restrictions on free speech:

Thesis:
Saying "Of course I believe in free speech, but..." is another way of saying that no, in fact, you don't.
It would seem that you are trying to argue that you do not oppose free speech in principle, but in practice you find a number of limitations you would like to impose. While that might sound reasonable, it isn't. To quote Mick Hume, "Like all meaningful liberties, free speech has to be a universal and indivisible right. Once you impose a 'but,' impose a condition, or attach a string, it ceases to be a right. Instead it becomes a concession to be rationed by someone in authority." He continues with "Those ubiquitous 'buts' don't just qualify a commitment to free speech, they crush it. To claim to believe in free speech, but... is akin to insisting that you believe in an Almighty God, but you don't think He's all that."

It might be better if you just came out and said what you truly believe, that you don't actually believe in freedom of speech. I believe that trying to restrict the freedom of others is evil.
When was the last time someone shouted "FIRE!" in a theater? Every time freedom of speech is discussed online, it seems like a race for this point to be brought up. Why the obsession?

This actually dates back to a 1919 Supreme Court ruling, and has been used as a "precedent" for countless proposed free speech restrictions, from both sides of the aisle. It's being used to broadly argue that some speech is simply too dangerous, and as such it is acceptable to silence and punish those who use inflammatory language. This argument too broadly applies this precedent, as such movements are often no longer an attempt to protect people and society from the consequences of such speech. Interestingly, it's not a precedent at all, since Oliver Wendell Holmes, who initially made this argument turned his back on his own words as being too restrictive on free speech. The Supreme Court threw out this precedent back in 1969.

The "fire in a public space" argument is used ala carte, as an all-purpose excuse to demand limits on free speech. If anything, we should be far less restrictive on free speech. I'm an absolutist in that regard. In fact, I think the "fire in a public space" argument should be used as a case-study in how facts and arguments can be twisted by those who wish to have a legitimate-sounding excuse. Any legitimate effort to study the initial wording of the original case will find that Holmes' words have been repeatedly misquoted and distorted.

In summary:
1: The "fire in a public space" argument has been distorted from its original usage beyond recognition
2: The original justice who wrote the opinion on the 1919 case reversed his opinion in a later case
3: This has not been the law in the US for almost fifty years.
4: The comparison of what MadJack said to a "fire in a public space" is a comparison which is incorrect.
The idea that 'words hurt,' and that they cause 'emotional wounds and psychological scars,' is complete bs. Ever heard the phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" There is a difference between actual, physical violence and "offensive" speech. The protection of the law must be upheld for those who are assaulted or oppressed; your rights stop at the tip of my nose. But this is a false comparison, as freedom of speech does not represent actual violence. To even suggest so is completely absurd. Taking offense does not give you the right to take away someone else's freedom of speech.

"Offensive" speech is offensive to the mind of the person who hears it. No one can tell you that you are not offended. In an effort to limit "offensive" speech, you are in effect limiting all speech.
To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Limiting individual freedom is evil. By demanding policies that you believe will make the United States safe and free, you in fact deserve neither. To compromise would be, in my opinion, treasonous to the values of the United States of America I believe in.
 
Last edited:
A much more interesting question is whether or not the same restrictions that prevent government from limiting speech should also apply to corporations. I believe that companies that are designed to be platforms for public debate and communal discussion should not be allowed to censor any individuals, regardless of their message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top