Last night I noticed a friend trying to get a anti homosexual facebook page taken down, yet I imagine that person if asked would say they believed in free speech . Another friend recently wrote a article trying to get publishers to drop a Israeli author who thought it was possible that aspects of the blood libel in the middle ages might have been true, again this friend might also say he liked free speech Can you have limited free speech, can you have free speech without what you might call hate speech, who gets to define what is hate speech . How about people talking about peodophilia when I say that not saying its a bad thing, but that its a good thing and campaigning to change laws lets say, what about people explaining how to make nuclear weapons or nerve agents, should speech be limited and how . anyway whats your opinion
I recently read quite a bit on free speech, and found that most people today say they are in favor of free speech. That is, until that free speech is directed at them or their cause, then they forget all about free speech and try to squash the other person's rights. It's the same thing as somebody saying they are not prejudiced at all but they won't buy gas at a station that is owned by an arab immigrant. The government has determined that free speech rights do not include the right to slander or libel someone. Some people think that freedom of speech should allow any expression so long as it is not harmful to others, which I tend to agree with. So far as detemining whether it is harmful to others, my take is that does not include supposed emotional trauma. In my book "harmful to others" means actual physical harm, not mental. I've learned that I have to be careful what I say on this site because someone might find my opinion offensive and feel insulted and they can get me kicked off the site for it.
Totally "Free Speech" is unachievable in practice. Society would not and should not accept it. We are right to censor in some respects, the mechanism and decision as to what is acceptable is where the difficulty arises. I agree with what has previously been mentioned and am in favour of peoples right to speak out.
There is a difference between, freedom of speech and freedom to speak - methinks Tolerance and Respect is a pre-requisite for the interaction of good communication, although far too often it is overshadowed by the volume and intimidation of others. I agree that the right to say and content thereof is a balance of personal opinion, though I guess the price one has to pay is the consequences of the principal
in regards the case of zero books and Gilad Atzmon ( im guessin that's who your friend was writing about) this isn't a free speech issue. free speech means that the government doesn't attempt to stop anyone from spreading their ideas. It is however your unalienable right to control the content of a publication that you own, or to choose whether or not to publish a writers work. asking zero books to drop Atzmon isnt the same as violating his right to free speech. he could have published with plenty of other companies. the protests were just trying to get zero books to take a more responsible approach to their output, particularly as, by printing his work, they automatically associate him with other writers and socialist/left wing movements who want nothing to with him. same thing applies to anything on facebook. its not a forum for controversial views where freedom of speech protects protects you no matter what you choose to say. there are plenty of places for that. facebook is a publicly traded company, its not a violation of anyones right to free speech if they choose to remove a group, particularly a controversial group which may harm the image of the company. believing in a right to free speech means not stopping people from spreading ideas. it doesn't mean that you have to provide a platform for everyone regardless of their views. if you own a website, publishing house magazine, whatever it is your right to determine its content or output because the content reflects on you.
Censorship is cowardice, arrogance & foolishness and only shows society's lack of confidence in itself that it think parts of life should be removed from all view. Are people really so insecure in themselves that they feel the need to try and force others? Some people want to be dicks, stopping them through force is a slippery slope.
i believe in free speech as in not being afraid to say what you think and feel, but you have to also accept that others might not agree with you, however i also think that we should at the same time respect other people and not use it for arguments sake or to put somebody down.
^ I think it's often misunderstood. The fact we have freedom of expression does not mean it's OK to terrorise people with threats...
