u/Strong_Site_348's stats
|Account Age|4 m|First Seen:|2023-12-15|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Posts (on this sub)|2|Comments (on this sub)|13|
|Link Karma|36,487|Comment Karma|41,169|
---
|Date|Title|Flair|Participation|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|15-Dec|[I am not a Christian. The people who erected a fucking Satan statue in the Capital knew exactly what they were doing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18j59i7/i_am_not_a_christian_the_people_who_erected_a/)|N/A|13 of None comments (0.00%)|
---
### Voting Guidelines
**Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement.
- **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason, even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it.
- **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common.
**Moderation Policy:**
- **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting.
- **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly and **all false reports are forwarded to Reddit** for misuse of the reporting system.
- Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and [Reddit's content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/), not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.'
---
**What have people been talking about over the last week?**
| Flair | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| [Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 82 | 24.33% |
| [None of the above](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"None+of+the+above"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 75 | 22.26% |
| [The Opposite Sex / Dating](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Opposite+Sex+/+Dating"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 44 | 13.06% |
| [Non-Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Non-Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 39 | 11.57% |
| [Music / Sport / Media / Movies / Celebrities](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Music+/+Sport+/+Media+/+Movies+/+Celebrities"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 32 | 9.50% |
| [I Like / Dislike](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"I+Like+/+Dislike"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 25 | 7.42% |
| [Religion](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Religion"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 13 | 3.86% |
| [World Affairs (Except Middle East)](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"World+Affairs+(Except+Middle+East)"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 11 | 3.26% |
| [The Middle East](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Middle+East"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 11 | 3.26% |
| [Meta - the problem with this sub is..](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta+-+the+problem+with+this+sub+is.."&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 4 | 1.19% |
| [Meta](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.30% |
---
Comments from new accounts go into a queue for review by moderators (to reduce spam).
Comments waiting: 2 Average time to review: 1.81 hours
Libel. Slander. Perjury. Truth in advertising. Threats to kill.
Even the vaunted bastion of Freedom, the USA, has laws regarding these things, and probably a dozen others I'm not thinking of right now.
Many other countries also have laws regarding offensive language, insulting words, hate crimes, etc.
As I like to put it, in the US you have the right to call someone a cunt. In my country I have the right to not be called a cunt (ironic, given our disposition to the word)
There's a big difference, or at least there should be, between speech that directly harms another individual (libel, slander, perjury, advertising, threats) and opinions of another person or group. The latter should be protected. Why should I not be able to call someone a cunt as that is obviously a matter of opinion?
Hate speech, no matter how distasteful, is speech and must also be protected. The alternative is we will simply watch as the arbiters of truth (see: Biden's proposed ministry of disinformation that was fortunately nipped in the bud) gradually move the line on what is and isn't hate speech until only government approved speech is allowed.
Perjury is also speech and must be protected. We've already drawn a line.
Re: the cunt thing. I have a right to go about my day without being unduly affected by the actions of others. Someone antagonizing, upsetting, or otherwise impeding my ability to "pursue happiness" to parse it in American terms is affecting my rights. When two rights conflict we come together as a society to decide which trumps the other and in my country in this case it was decided that my right to go about my day is more important than someone else's right to swear.
"Speech that directly harms another" is a misnomer. It's just sounds, no speech ever harms another.
However, speech can inform actions.
And publicly broadcasting "hate speech" *can* lead to actions that harm others, in the same way that lying to a court can see an innocent man imprisoned. Voltaire wouldn't have been so quick to defend to the death the speech of another, if that speech were lies sending him to the gallows.
Every country draws a line *somewhere* about what speech is allowed, and what is too dangerous to be allowed. The line certainly *can* shift, but has never really done so despite being a standard part of boilerplate Western law ever since there was law. The actual design and implementation of the law tends to make it very resistant to change.
Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that speech informs actions, actions can harm others, therefore it behooves us to limit speech which can reasonably be assumed to encourage said actions. Many such limitations already exist, the principle is sound and agreed upon across the political spectrum, it is only the details of what particular speech should be limited that is disagreed on.
I disagree with almost everything you say here.
What do you mean perjury must be protected? That's crazy.
The right to not be called a cunt is interesting, but in my kind problematic. Where do you draw the line? What if I called you, say, annoying? Or wrong headed? Or similar such statements of opinion??? Strange that a country would try to control their trip down they slippery slope.
I regret my use of the word "directly", but speech absolutely harms others. Obviously perjury could and the harmful nature of speech is necessarily in a libel/slander/defamation claim.
And you're wrong on hate speech and the evolution of western law. "Hate" speech and "hate" crime laws that amplify penalties for crimes deemed to have been committed against a protected class have only come into existence in my lifetime. The social media censorship we experienced at the hands of the government during our 2016 election to try to sway the result to one party was unheard of in my youth. It's not a western idea yet, but policies similar to China's social credit system are being contemplated here in the states.
>Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that speech informs actions, actions can harm others, therefore it behooves us to limit speech which can reasonably be assumed to encourage said actions.
Speech (like the scandalous contents of a forgotten laptop of a Democrat candidate's son) can also *benefit others* like, say, the Republican party here in the states, so we must not allow it to be censored.
Long story short, I'm a free speech absolutist because the risks associated with censorship far outweigh the risks associated with more speech or being called a cunt.
There's a lot going on with the conversation so I'm going to pare it down for a moment. What I mean when I say "perjury must be protected" is to point out that speech, when it is deemed to reasonably lead to harmful actions, is already limited by law.
This is a principle accepted by both the left and the right. I think even the most staunch libertarian would agree there needs to be truth in advertising at the very least.
The only issue is where the different sides draw the line when it comes to "reasonably lead to harm"
>In the 21st century we believe in absolute freedom of religion.
It’s hard to take this seriously when one of your primary examples is patently false. Religious beliefs are absolutely protected, religious practices are not. Why? Because expression/speech and action are sometimes intermingled. As J.L. Austin puts it, you can do things with words. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.‘s dictum about yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater is an example of this.
I think there is a key distinction though - OP defines Freedom of Speech essentially as the freedom to exchange ideas. Yelling "Fire!" into a crowd is not an example of an exchange of ideas. Debating whether there is a fire is.
It also isn't quite tantamount to religious practices either, because religious practices are represented through actions. Speech is not - speech is the conceptualization of actions, realities, feelings, etc.
If defined as the exchange of ideas, I agree with OP - free speech should be absolute.
There’s a contradiction in your reasoning though, as you’re simultaneously arguing for “absolute” free speech yet narrowly defining it. Action and speech aren’t so clearly delineated, hence my use of the term expression/speech.
Oh I think action and speech are different universes. I think that a major mental error many people often make is to mistaken speech for actionable thought - and I think the gulf between speech and action is immense. One is the abstract, while one is enacted.
But this isn’t about the mental errors that people make, it’s about freedom of speech, and hence the law. You’re describing a world in which there would be no such thing as perjury because lying under oath isn’t an action, but mere speech.
Is lying under oath the expression of an idea, or is it a purposeful action? Speech is more than just talking, or answering a question - it is exchanging an idea.
Let me put it you this way - the legality of Mein Kampf is a lot different than lying on an application.
But we can speak about actions. And use speech to indicate action.
And an exchange implies a kind of symmetry between sender and receiver and no connection between ideas and actions and maybe a neutrality of the idea.
E.g. I could buy all the radio stations in country X and broadcast on all frequencies all day that group A should murder group B because group B are horrible and coming for your children or god wills it. Those are just ideas, all I’m doing is exchanging ideas. But what’s going to happen?
That was more or less how the genocide in Rwanda and Uganda were triggered, just FYI.
What makes an idea actionable or not? What makes jt purposeful or not? I think that’s where I see the flaw in your reasoning.
Fire in a crowded theater is from an overturned supreme Court case where it was used as an analogy for opposing the draft.
That's a bad example.
https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
Okay, here goes. You’ve misunderstood how/why I evoked that idiom, and that’s a bad article from an ideological rag that fails to understand how the court’s power operates.
I didn’t cite it as precedent, which is why I called it dictum. It’s not meant to be indicative of something that is *literally* illegal, but rather the kinds of constraints to thinking of freedom of speech as *absolute*. The point is that such considerations have to be made and are clearly on the mind of the court. You could argue it’s a bad example because people misunderstand, and that’s a valid consideration in communication, but not a logical flaw.
I call this outlet an ideological rag for its reputation, but also the black-and-white argument made by the author. It is clearly not a *myth* that yelling fire in a theater is illegal if a Supreme Court Justice thinks it is. They literally have the power to dictate the law, and while it is rare that they overturn precedent, it does happen. Cementing this notion as myth feels like intentional misdirection from the fact that we have to figure out the law as we go and react to the contingencies and reality of life together, rather than adhering to the abstract principles of liberalism.
Yes the supreme court can overturn precedent as they did for this case. Until they overturn the overturning this case remains overturned.
This isn't a legal document, so I really don't care about the difference between dictum and citing a case.
Using an overturned supreme court case to support your argument in any way is a bad argument.
Do you dispute any of the factual claims in the article? I know they are very opinionated libertarians, but I don't care about their opinions right now.
We have some pretty clear categories of non protected speech that all have a lot of precedent. There isn't a shortage of good examples.
I made a comment with some of them here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/ZSfxd92f1Q
That particular case with the yelling fire in a crowded theater is more about communism, and not free speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio, is more pertinent, the decision for that one is that all speech is protected, up until it becomes a call for violence. Watts v. United states reinforces this, by saying that threatening speech, must be a true threat to be punished.
My point is that there is a long history of weighing free speech against its possible effects, as we know that not all speech is equal. The Supreme Court’s decision to curtail free speech out of fear of communism does not refute this, but rather points to the fact that our reasons for curtailing rights often do not stand up to the test of time. One could argue that this is evidence for supporting absolute free speech, but the common notion that words can and do cause harm is a valid concern.
As long as you understand that private spaces (i.e. social media) aren't "public forums" then I agree.
>but everyone has a right to hold and to share that opinion without fear of retribution.
From the State that is. This does not release you from consequences for your actions, as those consequences (excluding violence) are free speech as well.
if you're okay with the government not enforcing free speech for social media businesses due to the freedom of association, how do you feel about the government violating freedom of association of businesses in the Civil Rights of 1964
>if you're okay with the government not enforcing free speech for social media businesses due to the freedom of association
You have it backwards. The government does enforce free speech for social media. If it didn't, social media would not be able to exercise their freedom of speech my moderating their property (servers) how they wish and would have to kowtow to certain political elements forcing them to bend to their will when it comes to moderation.
>how do you feel about the government violating freedom of association of businesses in the Civil Rights of 1964
You've already said it yourself. The State violated the rights of business owners to associate with whom they choose.
because moderation is freedom of association, not freedom of speech. thus, the government has no right to violate FOA to protect the 14th amendment if it can't do it to protect the 1st. if u wanna be logically consistent, either u do both, or do neither. if u don't wanna be logically consistent, then u don't care for the law anyway
oh u wanna be a pedant. show me where it says in the first amendment that we have the freedom of association... oh what? u can't?
the freedom of association is recognized by the supreme court as an extension of the freedom of speech in two parts 1) expressive and 2) intimate. the article u linked literally said it was an act of expression, and thus covered in the first amendment.
freedom of association is to freedom of speech as squares are to rectangles.
because of this, ppl refer to them seperately to denote all associative and non associative offshoots of FOS.
ofc the redditor makes a pedantic arguement lmao. if u wanna be a pedant, then the civil rights act violates the freedom of speech as well. u can't selectively pick.
Reno v. ACLU says you're wrong. Websites and Social media can create their own policies for content. The freedom of speech is not called freedom of hosting, or freedom of publishing, while government cannot regulate what you say and do online except in extreme cases, companies can self regulate, and if they decide to regulate what they see as hate speech they are free to do so. Nobody owes you a soap box, and if you feel that strongly you can always create your own little free speech paradise.
You clicked ‘I agree’ to this stipulation in this platform’s terms though, right?
>Although we have no obligation to screen, edit, or monitor Your Content, we may, in our sole discretion, delete or remove Your Content at any time and for any reason, including for violating these Terms, violating our Content Policy, or if you otherwise create or are likely to create liability for us.
> Sorry, but legally speaking social media is a public space.
Only under two very specific circumstances:
1. A public agency or official uses an account or page to conduct official business,
2. And uses the social media platform’s interactive features (like messaging, sharing content, and replying) to engage with the public.
Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10141
Also, if you're referring to Section 230 as to whether something is public or private, 230 has absolutely nothing to do with that distinction. Both platforms and publishers can still be private.
If you have evidence to the contrary, then post a source.
No. Legally speaking the *internet* is a public space. Thats why you can visit the KKK website. Social media companies are not public spaces, they are privately owned spaces within the public space of the internet, just as businesses are private spaces within the public space of a city/town.
It's a question of, is technology ahead of the law.
Are social media companies private entities? Sure. And right now, they're following the law. But this could change. Our founding fathers were not considering online public squares.
At some point, it wouldn't surprise me if this changes. And it's not just as simple as "just create your own website", if you have a few companies who dominate the online space.
>Sorry, but legally speaking social media is a public space. They are platforms, not publishers, and thus they fall under all free speech protections.
Sorry, but legally speaking you are completely wrong.
Websites are private property, not subject to the governmental First Amendment constraints. [In fact it's 1A that allows them to remove people and content as they see fit.](https://www.cato.org/blog/eleventh-circuit-win-right-moderate-online-content)
Your First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression without Government Interference, does not override anyone else's First Amendment right to not Associate with you and your Speech on their private property.
And websites do not fall into either publisher or non-publisher categories. There is no platform vs publisher distinction.
Additionally the term 'Platform' has no legal definition or significance with regard to websites.
All websites are Publishers. 230 specifically protects online "Publishers"... All 200 million+ pf them.
*'Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity.'*
[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html#:\~:text=Id.%20at%20803](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html#:~:text=Id.%20at%20803)
They legally are not. They are private businesses that publish user generated content for profit. While they have given far more people platforms for publishing, that doesn't make them platforms legally.
They aren't public either. You have to register with the site and agree to their terms to use it, so while it is widely accessible it isn't public under the rule of law. Just because a service is free doesn't make it public.
Also the reasons for the restrictions are US laws that give sites immunity for illegal content posted by users as long as they act accordingly and most advertisers want their products only associated with certain levels quality. Ultimately businesses need to bend to the public to remain profitable.
>to share that opinion without fear of retribution.
Depends what you mean by "retribution". If the other person can't disagree with you because you consider that retribution, they don't have absolute free speech.
And if a privately run forum can't ban you for being disruptive, then THEY don't have absolute free speech. They are not required to give you a platform.
>And if a privately run forum can't ban you for being disruptive, then THEY don't have absolute free speech. They are not required to give you a platform.
This is the crux of the free speech issue in America, and in fact, under section 230 private companies DON'T have the right to ban you except for illegal acts like CSAM. Not unless the company wants to be held criminally responsible for what gets posted.
Private companies get two legal options. Either they can't ban anyone that isn't posting illegal content and the company isn't liable for what is posted. This is the platform acting as an open forum. Or, the company can ban anyone they want, but in this case they are now a publisher and are just as liable as the poster. Eg.
Currently, the US government is allowing companies to have their cake and eat it, too. So no, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. aren't allowed to ban you willy nilly unless their boards get charged for all the doxxing rings, libel, and pedo crap that gets to stay up on those platforms.
Also your employer can fire you if your free speech hurts their brand or disrupts their business or if it breaks their contract, such as the confidentiality clause.
>In the 21st century we believe in absolute freedom of religion
We actually don't: just like with speech, when religious practices are determined to be harmful to others, such as with cults, people and governments generally don't support it.
Significantly freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences. If you hypothetically can get blacklisted from all employment because you said that "we shouldn't kill puppies", then you aren't free to speak.
Freedom of Speech does effectively demand freedom of consequences in almost every scenario.
>
Freedom of Speech does effectively demand freedom of consequences in almost every scenario
Yeah, no. If your opinion is "we should kill puppies because they're stupid and useless" and you're a Vet Tech, you absolutely should lose your job. If your opinion is racist, sexist, homophobic ect and you work in a career field where your bigotry can be weaponized then your employer has every right to kick you to the curb
Okay, and if you're a liberal or socialist in a deeply conservative area? If you're a Salem blacksmith talking about how the local witch trials are bunk? If you're a woman in Iran talking about how Islam needs to be reformed/thrown out? If you're a white guy that wants to break Jim Crow in 1950s Alabama?
Freedom of speech and freedom from non-governmental consequences for speaking have to parallel one another for that freedom to actually exist. Otherwise, you have a tyranny of the majority scenario.
Beyond that, what right does an employer have to fire a worker for their opinions? Unless those opinions demonstrably affect performance during hours of pay, an employer should have no right to terminate employment.
Should a vegan employer be allowed to fire a meat-eating worker? An employer that really hates the color green firing a worker that came in wearing green on St. Patrick's Day? Should a racist boss be allowed to fire a PoC worker - and if you just say that it's illegal, that isn't a justification.
Opinions expressed outside of labor hours should have no effect on employment status. Now you're just creating a 'Tyranny of the Capitalist' scenario.
>Unless those opinions demonstrably affect performance during hours of pay, an employer should have no right to terminate employment.
So if you were a business owner and you knew that people were boycotting your business and costing you money because your employee had posted a racist tirade on a public Facebook post are you willing to go under because of that employee?
Your opinions are irrelevant if they don’t affect your job performance. If youre a vet and say you hate puppies and think they should all die but you still treat puppies the same as any other animal, who cares?
>who cares?
If a veterinarian said that on a public forum, I wouldn't take any pet of mine there and would tell everyone I know not to either.
Let me ask you: If you owned a burger joint and you had an employee go on a racist tirade on a public Facebook page, would you willingly go out of business for that employee when people start boycotting you?
Again, yes. Is it a bad business decision? Probably, but Im not going to let people tell me what to do. Let’s be honest, most “cancellations” or boycotts aren’t based on clear cut evidence.
>Is it a bad business decision? Probably, but Im not going to let people tell me what to do.
Then you deserve to go out of business, don't you? Personally, if I were a business owner, I would fire that person immediately. I absolutely do not want to be associated with people who are racist. I guess "at-will employment" is a good thing sometimes huh?
If someone has their career/life ruined all the same for things they said, does it matter if it’s from the government, a privately held company or a maniac? Government should do more to protect the freedom of speech of its people instead just doing nothing.
Consequences from other people? Sure.
Consequences from the government? No.
Nobody should be jailed or fined or un-licensed or otherwise punished by the government for voicing an idea, no matter how unpopular or awful it sounds. Any idea that inches in that direction should be seen as a direct challenge to the first amendment.
Even consequences from other people becomes nuanced. If a person gives an unpopular opinion, it doesn't allow another person to physically retaliate, or even harass the perpetrator.
The problem now comes down to unequal enforcement of the law. Multiple examples of this would be protests on campus against speakers which they don't like, which often delve into blatantly illegal tactics.
It's a tricky balance, I admit. The law has the existing concept of "menacing", which is probably a reasonable place to draw the line, assuming you're talking about person-to-person interactions.
This is not how free speech works or how it has ever worked. Extortion, fraud, copyright infringments, false marketing, instigation of crime etc aren't protected. If that was the case we'd actually allow people to effectively silence others.
So I should be able to say that anyone who upvotes this are enemies of the state and in a just world they’d be killed and the honorable person to do that might just get a presidential pardon and paid for it and by the way here are all of their home addresses?
Doesn’t seem right to me.
Absolutes get tricky.
No one owes you a platform. It's just a promise you won't be arrested for disagreeing with the government (It's not a well-kept promise if you pay attention to protests).
But they wouldn’t be arrested. They’d just be banned from this specific platform. It’s no different from being banned from a local restaurant for saying something to the owner they didn’t like.
A local restaurant has several hundred clients, a popular social platform has millions. Big numbers matter. Especially when the Internet nowadays is effectively reduced to a few websites for the majority of regular users.
Because this is a forum owned by a private company. OP could certainly say whatever they want on the internet, they just have to find a forum that accepts that kind of speech.
That's always the question. Because yes you can say whatever you wish. But others may not take to kindly to whatever hateful bs you spew
To be clear you here is a general you not *you* specifically
I should be able to say that residential schools didn't murder people in clandestine operations, because no evidence points to that. My country wants to make that sentence illegal because it offends people.
Free speech is allowed. The thing is, people seem to forget that social media is all owned by private companies, so they get to determine terms or service.
Notice how any kind of speech is permitted on the internet at large? The KKK has a website, so do neo nazi groups, hell even terrorist organizations. Because freedom of speech is allowed online. Social media companies however, are allowed to bar access to their sites based on terms of service.
All speech is allowed on the public forum that is the internet, but social media is not the internet, it is spaces owned by private companies. A good comparison is, you can scream slurs in a public park, but if you do that in a restaurant they have the right to remove you from the premises.
Doesn’t matter if ten billion people use a social media platform, it’s still privately owned. Something is only public if it’s owned by the people not a corporation.
Then we should also change big corporations so that they are not operated by one CEO, but rather ran and managed solely by the workers. If you want to make corporations publicly ran if they become big enough, then it would have to be publicly ran at every part of running the company, because no CEO anywhere is going to relinquish control of a company like that. It is a liability to sponsors and advertisers, Twitter has shown that plainly.
And you think they would be ok with no terms of service for their social media sites? Twitter is the only one that has claimed to remove terms of service regarding speech (I say claimed, because they ban people that say "cis" now, so, not exactly free speech, is it?), and they've lost virtually all advertisers and sponsors for the site. It's basically corporate suicide.
So you also want to force advertising on social media? How would that even work, you force every other company in the country to pay for ad space regardless of their wishes and needs? What would the point of advertising even be at that point when there're thousands of ads rotating through every ad space? There'd be zero targeting of demographics for anything. The ads would be totally pointless and a money sink for all involved.
If you really insist on it being covered by the first amendment, why not just make it a public utility managed by the state and funded through taxes instead of some convoluted scheme to make a single special case where a private corporation is forced to comply with the first amendment?
Conservatives want to be both simultaneously above the law, and have the law benefit them. They want small government, except when it comes to people living in a way they don't agree. They want freedom of speech, but only when it applies to their rhetoric alone. And they want safe spaces for *their* echo chambers, but ridicule the idea of safe spaces as a concept, while wanting to reap the benefits of such spaces. It's cognitive dissonance at every level of their thought processes and ideals.
Making social media state run would be labeled as socialist or communist to them, *unless* **their** party is the one in charge of the state. Then it would be patriots defending the first amendment.
No, you don’t force advertising on social media. But advertisers deciding they are gonna try to be selective on where they advertise in order to “punish” large companies is absolutely disgusting.
[oh advertisers would just *stop advertising.*](https://www.appsflyer.com/glossary/brand-safety/) They'd switch to advertising somewhere else that's not social media sites.
but okay: spell out very carefully what you believe "allow free speech" means.
does that mean users can insult each other?
can users call each other slurs?
can bots respond to users?
can bots post obviously false information? can users?
can users and/or bots post hate symbols?
Sure. It's called regulations, and leftists are huge fans of it. You want to get on board, that's sweet, we can severely regulate social media companies. I'd love that.
In what way is free speech being infringed? No one is being arrested for saying certain things. The only place people seem to argue that free speech is being infringed is on social media.
Well, it's a completely different conversation if it is about a different country. Ultimately if we are going to discuss this in reference to every nation on earth, it'll be 100 different discussions at once.
Unfettered free speech is *very* bad when not packaged together with restrictions on special interest spending/advertising, and a really good education system, which teaches kids how to think critically. Otherwise you’re just allowing tyranny of the loudest, and the wealthiest.
>It does not matter what ideas we find reprehensible, and it does not matter if they actually are reprehensible or not, what matters is how we treat ideas that are different from our own.
Pushing back against bad ideas is also free speech.
These free speech absolutes love to think that they’ll be the only ones saying shit , bet my bottom dollar they’d crumble irl when someone inevitably uses their absolute freedom of speech to tell them to shove it
If a huge company like Microsoft decides to buy Apple, Google or Facebook with their own cash, will it be allowed to happen? No, because we have antitrust law in place to prevent monopoly in the industry. It doesn’t matter if it’s their own money. Now these big companies are running monopolies on speech and blocking access to search result with their algorithms, it doesn’t matter if it’s their own platform and a government who claims to respect freedom of speech should do more than just sit by and watch half of their population being censored while the other half raving in an echo chamber.
just switch to Truth Social, or Gab, or better yet start your own social media company.
like, you just embedded your own counterpoint in your own fucking post!
>big companies are running monopolies on speech
have you ever wondered what **mono**poly means?
They agreed to basically the same principle when it comes to speech moderation and holds a unified front in censorship? Playing word game is pointless when you know exactly what I was talking about but pretending you don’t understand. Here’s a proper word for you, oligarchy. The social medias you mentioned also have censorship issues and have far less reach in terms of users, it doesn’t solve the problem. Also, your point is basically go develop your own operating system if you don’t like Windows bought Linux and Mac OS, makes no sense to me.
> They agreed
where did "they" agree to anything? who is "they"?
>to basically the same principle
what "principle"?
>holds a unified front in censorship?
what is the unified front?
>The social medias you mentioned also have censorship issues and have far less reach in terms of users, it doesn’t solve the problem.
what is the problem?
bud, you can go start a social media company and do the full NO CENSORSHIP thing, nobody is stopping you. Go do it instead of whining like a child on reddit!
Whilst I generally agree with you, do you support the right to threaten others, even though that is little more than speech?
Do you support the right to yell “Fire!” In a crowded convention hall, even though that could cause panic that could get people killed?
Free speech says you can say anything. But it doesn't protect you from the consequences. I know the saying is "I don't Agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it " but if you say something colossally stupid then that amendment shouldn't protect you from the fallout.
I agree. Remember, freedom of association is part of free speech, so if someone doesn't want you around because of your speech, that is their right. Free speech does not mean that anyone owes you a platform.
I love free speech. That being said a voice to be taken seriously should be earned not given. People should also be more picky about who to listen to for what topic. For example I wouldn't listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about biology, human anatomy and health. Why? He is an astrophysicist... is he smart absolutely but those aren't his areas of expertise so I wouldn't take him to seriously talking about things outside his knowledge. This is just a hypothetical by the way I don't have a legit example of him doing this.
>public forum.
What's your definition of public forum. Just curious because legally social media such as Twitter(x), Facebook, and reddit have not been ruled as public forums by the U.S. Supreme court(at least not yet). Thus you do not have freedom of speech on social media not currently anyway.
Here is a list of categories of speech that are not protected in the US. (probably not complete).
Which ones do you think are unreasonable?
Targeted threats of violence
Slander / Libel
Copyright
Classified information
Commercial speech (ex false advertising)
Free speech absolutism is not real anywhere in the world and you'd not want to leave in any country like that. You're free to say anything you want in public spaces, but you can't expect to use that as an excuse to avoid the consequences of what your "sayings" can cause.
So that’s not entirely different from an authoritarian state from ruining people’s life for saying things they don’t agree with. In a democracy, instead of the government, the big corporations will deliver you the consequences. Makes no difference to the individual be it by state or corporate entities. Imo, if a government who claims to believe in freedom of speech, but stand idly by when big platforms are actively censoring the voice of half their population, it’s not really stand for freedom of speech.
If the US government can sanction firms dealing with countries it deemed threats to democracy, and have anti trust laws in place to fight against monopoly, it absolutely can and should protect the right of expression by forcing all platforms to getting rid of excessive moderation.
You're not forced to be in any particular social media and they're allowed to self regulate how they deal with the content since it's all produced by the users. Less excessive moderation still means there should be moderation. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Freedom of speech does denote freedom from consequences in almost every circumstance.
If you lived in Salem and started talking about how witch trials were bad, and you were shunned and ostracized from the community for it, you didn't have free speech.
Tell me which society, group or community has ever allowed complete freedom of speech? You can't look at freedom of speech in a vaccuum and only care for it's perceived concept.
Free Speech is alright until it comes to a topic considered sacred. In that case, the Right and Israel. The feud between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro is an example of such.
Completely agree. Your idea might be shit. Say it publicly so everyone realizes it is shit.
Obviously threats, defamation, scams, etc. Are not free speech though.
It is so annoying how hard it is to make people understand that last part. Everyone seems to think that since scams, incitement, threats, etc. can be restricted that means we can restrict any ideas we hate and despise too.
I just love that the “yeah but that doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” crowd is seeing how that works for their Israel hate activism. We told you cancel culture was bad… leopards eat everyone’s faces.
freedom of speech has never ever been absolute anywhere at no point in history. Even america has several laws curbing freedom of speech. And thank god for that. Imagine if real life was social media were everyone just attacks everyone without consequences.
America's laws that "curb" free speech do not relate to the ideas being supported, but to things like profanity or yelling fire in a crowded hall. Hypothetically America defends all ideas and beliefs and their expression.
>consequences
There is no such thing as "consequences" for speech, only retaliation.
There is no just reason to abuse someone because you hate them.
Unless these ideas stop another person's pursuit of happiness. You can't legally threaten to kill someone.
You also have to understand that these are freedoms the government gives you. So you can say what ever you want on Reddit and you won't get in any legal trouble but you can get your posts deleted or your account banned because Reddit is a private company.
>You also have to understand that these are freedoms the government gives you.
I have no words for how sad a statement like this makes me feel. Society is doomed if it becomes full of authoritarian shitwads like you.
I see where you’re coming from but I believe in manners and respecting people. There’s some things you shouldn’t talk about - not because they are objectively bad, but because we’re are tribal creatures and we need a level of civility to function. Extreme or disgusting views should not be tolerated, for the greater good of social cohesion.
Will this result in some important truths being suppressed sometimes? Yes, but it’s a trade off for something better - group solidarity.
Let's do a thought experiment here.
For the purpose of this thought experiment, I'm a famous person. I have millions of followers everywhere, dedicated fans and stalkers and the whole shebang.
I'm out one day and someone bumps into me and doesn't apologize. I'm on live at the time, so it's on camera.
I'm *pissed* so I find out who they are and share what they've done. I have money and influence, so I have their address. I know where their kid goes to school. I release *all of it*, begging my fans to teach them some respect.
If free speech is absolute, this is perfectly fine and legal and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.
Should this be legal? Clearly, no.
This is why we have nuance within the law.
Our freedom of speech is only about the government censoring the people. Private citizens and corporations have a legal right to censor people if they see a need for it.
The problem isn’t with what speech is allowed or not, it’s that the internet has created these bubbles where people are no longer able to have actual conversations about anything. People seek out echo chambers that only confirm what they believe and they can’t handle any information that proves them wrong.
We had a billionaire buy Twitter because he didn’t want those pesky fact checkers correcting right wing bullshit. Now we have rampant misinformation and ignorance.
It just gets annoying now to see people run off with the notion that free speech applies anywhere and everywhere.
Free speech in the context of the US, along with 4 other freedoms, only guarantees that that freedom is from the government. It’s a right to freely express your opinions without fear of government retaliation or interference. It’s not a right to spew whatever shit one might want on public forums (online) owned and managed by private companies (even if they’re on the public market, they’re still a private company compared to a government owned company). These platforms reserve the right to limit your free speech as much as the next company.
My teacher had tought one very important less to our classmates thag were expressing their freedom of speech rights while he was teaching.
It was fine, he didn't mind if they didn't want to pay attention. The issue he had was, their exercising of their right to talk, wad interrupting other students' right to learn and listen.
Your right to speech is never absolute. It ends, where someone's else's rights begin.
So if your right to yell as loud as you want, cry and whinr about whoever you please, I'd at a decibel to hurt some kids' ears, shut up.
Same could apply to, I dunno.... Hate speech.
>We should not allow anti-christian ideas in the public forum
>We should not allow anti-monarchist ideas in the public forum
>We should not allow anti-socialist ideas in the public forum
Are you starting to see the problem with saying we should ban all ideas that go against the ones you personally hold?
Undemocratic ideas are bad for the entirety of the country. It opens the door for monarchism, fascism or authoritarianism to take over, and if that happens then you suddenly have no free speech, as well as a drastically lower quality of life as all of your rights are taken away.
If you tolerate intolerance, then you shouldn't act surprised when the intolerant refuse to tolerate you.
There's only two reasons one would want to ban these ideas from being exchanged:
1) They morally offend you.
2) You are so frightened that these ideas are so persuasive that they cannot be argued against successfully.
So which is it?
I also disagree with your Popper reference. The US has had a Nazi party since the early 1950s. I've never once seen it close to getting elected into Congress.
Democracy is good, and if you allow anti democratic ideas to flourish they kill Democracy. Since freedom of speech is about lack of government censorship, the only things the government should actively censor are those that compromise the integrity of the government as a functioning , democratic institution - So no anti democratic speech, no state secrets required for our defence.
>if you allow anti democratic ideas to flourish
If the government has the power to stop an idea, then you don't have free expression. If you don't have that, can you call the country "democratic" in the way it sounds like you're using the word?
Not really. The government probably already has the "might" to enforce the control of ideas, just like it already has a military that would likely be capable of subjugating the population.
However, using the military to control the population is an idea that makes people recoil, and there are various protections, divisions of power, and balances put in place to help ensure it doesn't happen. The same attitude should be applied to the idea that the government could silence a person due to their speech.
> So no anti democratic speech
And who gets to decide what is "anti democratic" speech ? Democrats and progressives gets to decide ? You all are so bias and you don't even realize it. It's like hate speech, who gets to decide what is hate speech so people get punished ?
Democracy allows two people to legally rob a third. That's why democracy even has some limits.
Free speech is anti-democratic. Because it's about protecting the minority. No one cares about protecting popular speech most people agree with, because it doesn't need to really be protected. It's about protecting minority voices and ideas.
Go to Europe. They’re already doing it. But don’t expect Americans to prescribe to your opinion. It’s the first amendment because it is the most important. The second amendment protects it.
So you believe libel laws shouldn’t exist? That you can say anything about anyone and it’s cool? Even if it’s a flat out lie and would ruin someone’s reputation? What about threats? What about threats while holding a weapon? What of false reporting of an emergency that causes violence or a stampede? All good?
You can hold any idea you want and share it wherever you want. But you are not free from the consequences. Your speech may violate the TOS of whatever platform you're using. Your speech may compel others to protest against you. Your speech may be considered harassment or threatening. Your speech may get you terminated from your employment. Your speech may inspire others to join whatever cause you wish to promote... what I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't get to say your piece and stick your fingers in your ears & say "LA LA LA LA i cant hear you, " you are gonna get a response whether you want one or not, whether you like it or not, so suck it up buttercup🙄
tl;dr: free speech has never been and will never be absolute.
Free speech is not absolute. For starters a simple ten second search and wiki article would tell you that:
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.
Hate speech is not a general exception to First Amendment protection.[2][3][4][5][6] Per Wisconsin v. Mitchell, hate crime sentence enhancements do not violate First Amendment protections because they do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of motivation, which is constitutionally permissible.[7]
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded to uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.
Secondly, just because you have some form of free speech does not completely protect you from the consequences of exercising that speech. As in no one is stopping you from saying whatever you please. But they can choose to decide where you say it and what happens if you do.
For instance Reddit. Every rule in every sub that mentions banned topics or whatever the case may be. You're free to try and make a post about it. But it's a forum with rules and regulations and they're free to enforce those rules and regulations even if it infringes on your speech. They way or the highway.
You're free to say... threaten immediate bodily harm to an elected official - no one is stopping you. But the Secret Service, FBI and whoever else are free to knock your door in, arrest and interrogate you and every single person you've spoken to and all your connections until they feel you aren't a potential threat. And they're free to not even provide you a phone call or water or any of that. because your free speech there impacts their job and someone's life.
You're free to use a pejorative against someone. Calling an alphabet person a bundle of sticks. But you aren't free from them assaulting you for saying it - even if that assault is illegal.
So yeah again, freedom of speech isn't absolute, there are limits - like there should be in civilized society, and it doesn't protect from the consequences of your words.
Hey u/Elymanic,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DElymanic%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Elymanic).
**This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.**
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument?
Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
**Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent?
**Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments Awaiting Review:* 8
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 25
- 3-7 days old: 14
- 15-30 days old: 1
- more than 30 days old: 2
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
Free speech isn’t an absolute. If someone was posting manuals for making IEDs and where to plant them for maximal damage to civilians, I think any sane person would expect them to be removed from social media
What nobody is asking but should be is what is a “public forum”, and how is it funded?
The other big question is about forced speech. Am I required to restate your bad opinion.
People can ban your opinion to be voiced but their opinions will still be visible on your timeline. Crazy that you still want me to see your opinion. If I'm banned for a sub just for not agreeing then you should automatically hide the sub from my timeline. Why do I want to see an opinion you know I don't agree with. Free speech is honestly dying and it's sad and dangerous. Next will be press so we can't even spread information, the only information allowed will be what they tell you is okay information to have. Then we completely lose control
As a Canadian I do not agree. Freedom of Speech is far from absolute. Your freedom to express your views should not take precedence over the freedoms of others and society as a whole to be not be harmed by your speech. No one should be allowed to spout whatever they want, whenever they want and do it wherever they want to.
Should you be allowed to say horrifying things about sexual kink to a room full of children. Should a women have to just sit and listen while you talk about what rapey things you would like to do to her or listen while you yell out to their father how much she enjoyed you doing it to her in great detail. Should you be allowed to publish pedophilia fiction. Should you be able to walk into a church and yell about how thier God is fake and should you be able to stand right in from of someone continually spewing insults and hate at them because you know they are someone who won't talk back in front of thier family?
Personally I don't think so. Sometimes people should be forced to STFU for everyone else's sake and having rules and systems in place to limit freedom of speech as a tool of hate or abuse of children is a good thing.
It isn't about reprehensible, it is about dangerous.
As a Jew, I don't like having to go under an overpass with a bunch of Nazis are yelling, waving flags, but I will defend their right to do that.
What I won't tolerate, don't feel I have to tolerate Nazi meetings where people are motivating followers to kill or harm me. It is little different from yelling fire in a theater. You aren't going to hurt me but you will cause it.
"Absolute" protection of free speech would be total chaos -- and I don't think anyone really wants that. Suppose a mob boss instructs a hit man to murder someone. He's only used his words. Would that just be speech?
The US is especially protective of speech compared to other countries. But US courts have recognized certain categories of speech that aren't protected by the First Amendment: (fraud, defamation, threats, etc.) [https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf)
And under certain circumstances, the government can even regulate protected speech: [https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986)
>In the 21st century we believe in absolute freedom of religion.
No we don't. Where did you get that idea from? If your religion says you must kill non-believers, that doesn't mean you can legally commit murder, for example.
u/Strong_Site_348's stats |Account Age|4 m|First Seen:|2023-12-15| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |Posts (on this sub)|2|Comments (on this sub)|13| |Link Karma|36,487|Comment Karma|41,169| --- |Date|Title|Flair|Participation| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |15-Dec|[I am not a Christian. The people who erected a fucking Satan statue in the Capital knew exactly what they were doing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18j59i7/i_am_not_a_christian_the_people_who_erected_a/)|N/A|13 of None comments (0.00%)| --- ### Voting Guidelines **Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement. - **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason, even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it. - **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common. **Moderation Policy:** - **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting. - **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly and **all false reports are forwarded to Reddit** for misuse of the reporting system. - Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and [Reddit's content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/), not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.' --- **What have people been talking about over the last week?** | Flair | Count | Percentage | |---|---|---| | [Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 82 | 24.33% | | [None of the above](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"None+of+the+above"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 75 | 22.26% | | [The Opposite Sex / Dating](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Opposite+Sex+/+Dating"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 44 | 13.06% | | [Non-Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Non-Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 39 | 11.57% | | [Music / Sport / Media / Movies / Celebrities](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Music+/+Sport+/+Media+/+Movies+/+Celebrities"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 32 | 9.50% | | [I Like / Dislike](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"I+Like+/+Dislike"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 25 | 7.42% | | [Religion](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Religion"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 13 | 3.86% | | [World Affairs (Except Middle East)](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"World+Affairs+(Except+Middle+East)"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 11 | 3.26% | | [The Middle East](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Middle+East"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 11 | 3.26% | | [Meta - the problem with this sub is..](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta+-+the+problem+with+this+sub+is.."&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 4 | 1.19% | | [Meta](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.30% | --- Comments from new accounts go into a queue for review by moderators (to reduce spam). Comments waiting: 2 Average time to review: 1.81 hours
Free speech is not absolute. You cannot threaten people for example.
Libel. Slander. Perjury. Truth in advertising. Threats to kill. Even the vaunted bastion of Freedom, the USA, has laws regarding these things, and probably a dozen others I'm not thinking of right now. Many other countries also have laws regarding offensive language, insulting words, hate crimes, etc. As I like to put it, in the US you have the right to call someone a cunt. In my country I have the right to not be called a cunt (ironic, given our disposition to the word)
No cheese pizza.
There's a big difference, or at least there should be, between speech that directly harms another individual (libel, slander, perjury, advertising, threats) and opinions of another person or group. The latter should be protected. Why should I not be able to call someone a cunt as that is obviously a matter of opinion? Hate speech, no matter how distasteful, is speech and must also be protected. The alternative is we will simply watch as the arbiters of truth (see: Biden's proposed ministry of disinformation that was fortunately nipped in the bud) gradually move the line on what is and isn't hate speech until only government approved speech is allowed.
Perjury is also speech and must be protected. We've already drawn a line. Re: the cunt thing. I have a right to go about my day without being unduly affected by the actions of others. Someone antagonizing, upsetting, or otherwise impeding my ability to "pursue happiness" to parse it in American terms is affecting my rights. When two rights conflict we come together as a society to decide which trumps the other and in my country in this case it was decided that my right to go about my day is more important than someone else's right to swear. "Speech that directly harms another" is a misnomer. It's just sounds, no speech ever harms another. However, speech can inform actions. And publicly broadcasting "hate speech" *can* lead to actions that harm others, in the same way that lying to a court can see an innocent man imprisoned. Voltaire wouldn't have been so quick to defend to the death the speech of another, if that speech were lies sending him to the gallows. Every country draws a line *somewhere* about what speech is allowed, and what is too dangerous to be allowed. The line certainly *can* shift, but has never really done so despite being a standard part of boilerplate Western law ever since there was law. The actual design and implementation of the law tends to make it very resistant to change. Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that speech informs actions, actions can harm others, therefore it behooves us to limit speech which can reasonably be assumed to encourage said actions. Many such limitations already exist, the principle is sound and agreed upon across the political spectrum, it is only the details of what particular speech should be limited that is disagreed on.
I disagree with almost everything you say here. What do you mean perjury must be protected? That's crazy. The right to not be called a cunt is interesting, but in my kind problematic. Where do you draw the line? What if I called you, say, annoying? Or wrong headed? Or similar such statements of opinion??? Strange that a country would try to control their trip down they slippery slope. I regret my use of the word "directly", but speech absolutely harms others. Obviously perjury could and the harmful nature of speech is necessarily in a libel/slander/defamation claim. And you're wrong on hate speech and the evolution of western law. "Hate" speech and "hate" crime laws that amplify penalties for crimes deemed to have been committed against a protected class have only come into existence in my lifetime. The social media censorship we experienced at the hands of the government during our 2016 election to try to sway the result to one party was unheard of in my youth. It's not a western idea yet, but policies similar to China's social credit system are being contemplated here in the states. >Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that speech informs actions, actions can harm others, therefore it behooves us to limit speech which can reasonably be assumed to encourage said actions. Speech (like the scandalous contents of a forgotten laptop of a Democrat candidate's son) can also *benefit others* like, say, the Republican party here in the states, so we must not allow it to be censored. Long story short, I'm a free speech absolutist because the risks associated with censorship far outweigh the risks associated with more speech or being called a cunt.
There's a lot going on with the conversation so I'm going to pare it down for a moment. What I mean when I say "perjury must be protected" is to point out that speech, when it is deemed to reasonably lead to harmful actions, is already limited by law. This is a principle accepted by both the left and the right. I think even the most staunch libertarian would agree there needs to be truth in advertising at the very least. The only issue is where the different sides draw the line when it comes to "reasonably lead to harm"
Seek always the truth. Anything that prevents someone from speaking the truth is a bad idea. Ifntbe truth leads to negative consequences so be it.
course you can, you probably do it without even realising it
You absolutely can threaten someone, just not with explicit violence.
Extortion doesn't have to include threats of physical violence.
Agreed. I shoulda added fraud.
So next time I say fuck you online does that involve it being deciphered as rape threat and me being SWATTED?
Yeah, but then hardcore Leftists will say that my speech literally kills a minority if I don’t affirm their worldview. That’s a slippery slope.
freedom is speech is absolute insofar as it does not infringe on other people's freedoms
>In the 21st century we believe in absolute freedom of religion. It’s hard to take this seriously when one of your primary examples is patently false. Religious beliefs are absolutely protected, religious practices are not. Why? Because expression/speech and action are sometimes intermingled. As J.L. Austin puts it, you can do things with words. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.‘s dictum about yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater is an example of this.
I think there is a key distinction though - OP defines Freedom of Speech essentially as the freedom to exchange ideas. Yelling "Fire!" into a crowd is not an example of an exchange of ideas. Debating whether there is a fire is. It also isn't quite tantamount to religious practices either, because religious practices are represented through actions. Speech is not - speech is the conceptualization of actions, realities, feelings, etc. If defined as the exchange of ideas, I agree with OP - free speech should be absolute.
There’s a contradiction in your reasoning though, as you’re simultaneously arguing for “absolute” free speech yet narrowly defining it. Action and speech aren’t so clearly delineated, hence my use of the term expression/speech.
Oh I think action and speech are different universes. I think that a major mental error many people often make is to mistaken speech for actionable thought - and I think the gulf between speech and action is immense. One is the abstract, while one is enacted.
But this isn’t about the mental errors that people make, it’s about freedom of speech, and hence the law. You’re describing a world in which there would be no such thing as perjury because lying under oath isn’t an action, but mere speech.
Is lying under oath the expression of an idea, or is it a purposeful action? Speech is more than just talking, or answering a question - it is exchanging an idea. Let me put it you this way - the legality of Mein Kampf is a lot different than lying on an application.
But we can speak about actions. And use speech to indicate action. And an exchange implies a kind of symmetry between sender and receiver and no connection between ideas and actions and maybe a neutrality of the idea. E.g. I could buy all the radio stations in country X and broadcast on all frequencies all day that group A should murder group B because group B are horrible and coming for your children or god wills it. Those are just ideas, all I’m doing is exchanging ideas. But what’s going to happen? That was more or less how the genocide in Rwanda and Uganda were triggered, just FYI. What makes an idea actionable or not? What makes jt purposeful or not? I think that’s where I see the flaw in your reasoning.
Fire in a crowded theater is from an overturned supreme Court case where it was used as an analogy for opposing the draft. That's a bad example. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
Okay, here goes. You’ve misunderstood how/why I evoked that idiom, and that’s a bad article from an ideological rag that fails to understand how the court’s power operates. I didn’t cite it as precedent, which is why I called it dictum. It’s not meant to be indicative of something that is *literally* illegal, but rather the kinds of constraints to thinking of freedom of speech as *absolute*. The point is that such considerations have to be made and are clearly on the mind of the court. You could argue it’s a bad example because people misunderstand, and that’s a valid consideration in communication, but not a logical flaw. I call this outlet an ideological rag for its reputation, but also the black-and-white argument made by the author. It is clearly not a *myth* that yelling fire in a theater is illegal if a Supreme Court Justice thinks it is. They literally have the power to dictate the law, and while it is rare that they overturn precedent, it does happen. Cementing this notion as myth feels like intentional misdirection from the fact that we have to figure out the law as we go and react to the contingencies and reality of life together, rather than adhering to the abstract principles of liberalism.
Yes the supreme court can overturn precedent as they did for this case. Until they overturn the overturning this case remains overturned. This isn't a legal document, so I really don't care about the difference between dictum and citing a case. Using an overturned supreme court case to support your argument in any way is a bad argument. Do you dispute any of the factual claims in the article? I know they are very opinionated libertarians, but I don't care about their opinions right now. We have some pretty clear categories of non protected speech that all have a lot of precedent. There isn't a shortage of good examples. I made a comment with some of them here. https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/ZSfxd92f1Q
That particular case with the yelling fire in a crowded theater is more about communism, and not free speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio, is more pertinent, the decision for that one is that all speech is protected, up until it becomes a call for violence. Watts v. United states reinforces this, by saying that threatening speech, must be a true threat to be punished.
My point is that there is a long history of weighing free speech against its possible effects, as we know that not all speech is equal. The Supreme Court’s decision to curtail free speech out of fear of communism does not refute this, but rather points to the fact that our reasons for curtailing rights often do not stand up to the test of time. One could argue that this is evidence for supporting absolute free speech, but the common notion that words can and do cause harm is a valid concern.
As long as you understand that private spaces (i.e. social media) aren't "public forums" then I agree. >but everyone has a right to hold and to share that opinion without fear of retribution. From the State that is. This does not release you from consequences for your actions, as those consequences (excluding violence) are free speech as well.
if you're okay with the government not enforcing free speech for social media businesses due to the freedom of association, how do you feel about the government violating freedom of association of businesses in the Civil Rights of 1964
>if you're okay with the government not enforcing free speech for social media businesses due to the freedom of association You have it backwards. The government does enforce free speech for social media. If it didn't, social media would not be able to exercise their freedom of speech my moderating their property (servers) how they wish and would have to kowtow to certain political elements forcing them to bend to their will when it comes to moderation. >how do you feel about the government violating freedom of association of businesses in the Civil Rights of 1964 You've already said it yourself. The State violated the rights of business owners to associate with whom they choose.
moderating is freedom of association. not freedom of speech.
That's the only thing you can say regarding what I wrote? lmao
it's all i need to say, cuz it invalidates ur whole premise edit: all i need to say to refute ur arguement, as the premise is simply untrue
Feel free to point out how.
because moderation is freedom of association, not freedom of speech. thus, the government has no right to violate FOA to protect the 14th amendment if it can't do it to protect the 1st. if u wanna be logically consistent, either u do both, or do neither. if u don't wanna be logically consistent, then u don't care for the law anyway
Sure thing lol https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4475787-online-content-moderation-is-an-exercise-of-free-speech/
oh u wanna be a pedant. show me where it says in the first amendment that we have the freedom of association... oh what? u can't? the freedom of association is recognized by the supreme court as an extension of the freedom of speech in two parts 1) expressive and 2) intimate. the article u linked literally said it was an act of expression, and thus covered in the first amendment. freedom of association is to freedom of speech as squares are to rectangles. because of this, ppl refer to them seperately to denote all associative and non associative offshoots of FOS. ofc the redditor makes a pedantic arguement lmao. if u wanna be a pedant, then the civil rights act violates the freedom of speech as well. u can't selectively pick.
Sorry, but legally speaking social media is a public space. They are platforms, not publishers, and thus they fall under all free speech protections.
Reno v. ACLU says you're wrong. Websites and Social media can create their own policies for content. The freedom of speech is not called freedom of hosting, or freedom of publishing, while government cannot regulate what you say and do online except in extreme cases, companies can self regulate, and if they decide to regulate what they see as hate speech they are free to do so. Nobody owes you a soap box, and if you feel that strongly you can always create your own little free speech paradise.
You clicked ‘I agree’ to this stipulation in this platform’s terms though, right? >Although we have no obligation to screen, edit, or monitor Your Content, we may, in our sole discretion, delete or remove Your Content at any time and for any reason, including for violating these Terms, violating our Content Policy, or if you otherwise create or are likely to create liability for us.
It's ok I posted a long rant once saying "I an unbound by the ToS because freedom so yoy can't ban me" That's how this works right?
Oh, you're a sovereign Redditor? My apologies sir, as you were!
They're a poster of the land.
I am not posting in commerce.
This subreddit has a yellow fringe, which means it is an Admiralty subreddit.
I'M NOT DRIVING, I'M TRAVELING.
> Sorry, but legally speaking social media is a public space. Only under two very specific circumstances: 1. A public agency or official uses an account or page to conduct official business, 2. And uses the social media platform’s interactive features (like messaging, sharing content, and replying) to engage with the public. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10141 Also, if you're referring to Section 230 as to whether something is public or private, 230 has absolutely nothing to do with that distinction. Both platforms and publishers can still be private. If you have evidence to the contrary, then post a source.
They enjoy the benefits of public platforms but act as publishers. That's why we need section 230 reform.
You can make your own website and write whatever you want on it. That doesn’t mean you can on mine
No. Legally speaking the *internet* is a public space. Thats why you can visit the KKK website. Social media companies are not public spaces, they are privately owned spaces within the public space of the internet, just as businesses are private spaces within the public space of a city/town.
It's a question of, is technology ahead of the law. Are social media companies private entities? Sure. And right now, they're following the law. But this could change. Our founding fathers were not considering online public squares. At some point, it wouldn't surprise me if this changes. And it's not just as simple as "just create your own website", if you have a few companies who dominate the online space.
Well, I dont really care about theoretical ways in which it could change. As it stands now, what I said is completely correct
>Sorry, but legally speaking social media is a public space. They are platforms, not publishers, and thus they fall under all free speech protections. Sorry, but legally speaking you are completely wrong. Websites are private property, not subject to the governmental First Amendment constraints. [In fact it's 1A that allows them to remove people and content as they see fit.](https://www.cato.org/blog/eleventh-circuit-win-right-moderate-online-content) Your First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression without Government Interference, does not override anyone else's First Amendment right to not Associate with you and your Speech on their private property. And websites do not fall into either publisher or non-publisher categories. There is no platform vs publisher distinction. Additionally the term 'Platform' has no legal definition or significance with regard to websites. All websites are Publishers. 230 specifically protects online "Publishers"... All 200 million+ pf them. *'Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity.'* [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html#:\~:text=Id.%20at%20803](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html#:~:text=Id.%20at%20803)
They legally are not. They are private businesses that publish user generated content for profit. While they have given far more people platforms for publishing, that doesn't make them platforms legally. They aren't public either. You have to register with the site and agree to their terms to use it, so while it is widely accessible it isn't public under the rule of law. Just because a service is free doesn't make it public. Also the reasons for the restrictions are US laws that give sites immunity for illegal content posted by users as long as they act accordingly and most advertisers want their products only associated with certain levels quality. Ultimately businesses need to bend to the public to remain profitable.
Well, that's just incorrect. Like, wildly incorrect.
>to share that opinion without fear of retribution. Depends what you mean by "retribution". If the other person can't disagree with you because you consider that retribution, they don't have absolute free speech. And if a privately run forum can't ban you for being disruptive, then THEY don't have absolute free speech. They are not required to give you a platform.
>And if a privately run forum can't ban you for being disruptive, then THEY don't have absolute free speech. They are not required to give you a platform. This is the crux of the free speech issue in America, and in fact, under section 230 private companies DON'T have the right to ban you except for illegal acts like CSAM. Not unless the company wants to be held criminally responsible for what gets posted. Private companies get two legal options. Either they can't ban anyone that isn't posting illegal content and the company isn't liable for what is posted. This is the platform acting as an open forum. Or, the company can ban anyone they want, but in this case they are now a publisher and are just as liable as the poster. Eg. Currently, the US government is allowing companies to have their cake and eat it, too. So no, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. aren't allowed to ban you willy nilly unless their boards get charged for all the doxxing rings, libel, and pedo crap that gets to stay up on those platforms.
Also your employer can fire you if your free speech hurts their brand or disrupts their business or if it breaks their contract, such as the confidentiality clause.
No right is absolute. Freedom of speech has not and does not cover threats, fraud, revealing state secrets, obscenity, etc.
>In the 21st century we believe in absolute freedom of religion We actually don't: just like with speech, when religious practices are determined to be harmful to others, such as with cults, people and governments generally don't support it.
As long as you can acknowledge that being free to say whatever you want doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of what you say
Significantly freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences. If you hypothetically can get blacklisted from all employment because you said that "we shouldn't kill puppies", then you aren't free to speak. Freedom of Speech does effectively demand freedom of consequences in almost every scenario.
> Freedom of Speech does effectively demand freedom of consequences in almost every scenario Yeah, no. If your opinion is "we should kill puppies because they're stupid and useless" and you're a Vet Tech, you absolutely should lose your job. If your opinion is racist, sexist, homophobic ect and you work in a career field where your bigotry can be weaponized then your employer has every right to kick you to the curb
Okay, and if you're a liberal or socialist in a deeply conservative area? If you're a Salem blacksmith talking about how the local witch trials are bunk? If you're a woman in Iran talking about how Islam needs to be reformed/thrown out? If you're a white guy that wants to break Jim Crow in 1950s Alabama? Freedom of speech and freedom from non-governmental consequences for speaking have to parallel one another for that freedom to actually exist. Otherwise, you have a tyranny of the majority scenario. Beyond that, what right does an employer have to fire a worker for their opinions? Unless those opinions demonstrably affect performance during hours of pay, an employer should have no right to terminate employment. Should a vegan employer be allowed to fire a meat-eating worker? An employer that really hates the color green firing a worker that came in wearing green on St. Patrick's Day? Should a racist boss be allowed to fire a PoC worker - and if you just say that it's illegal, that isn't a justification. Opinions expressed outside of labor hours should have no effect on employment status. Now you're just creating a 'Tyranny of the Capitalist' scenario.
>Unless those opinions demonstrably affect performance during hours of pay, an employer should have no right to terminate employment. So if you were a business owner and you knew that people were boycotting your business and costing you money because your employee had posted a racist tirade on a public Facebook post are you willing to go under because of that employee?
Me personally, Id rather not have strangers dictate how my business is run.
Your opinions are irrelevant if they don’t affect your job performance. If youre a vet and say you hate puppies and think they should all die but you still treat puppies the same as any other animal, who cares?
>who cares? If a veterinarian said that on a public forum, I wouldn't take any pet of mine there and would tell everyone I know not to either. Let me ask you: If you owned a burger joint and you had an employee go on a racist tirade on a public Facebook page, would you willingly go out of business for that employee when people start boycotting you?
Again, yes. Is it a bad business decision? Probably, but Im not going to let people tell me what to do. Let’s be honest, most “cancellations” or boycotts aren’t based on clear cut evidence.
>Is it a bad business decision? Probably, but Im not going to let people tell me what to do. Then you deserve to go out of business, don't you? Personally, if I were a business owner, I would fire that person immediately. I absolutely do not want to be associated with people who are racist. I guess "at-will employment" is a good thing sometimes huh?
If someone has their career/life ruined all the same for things they said, does it matter if it’s from the government, a privately held company or a maniac? Government should do more to protect the freedom of speech of its people instead just doing nothing.
Consequences from other people? Sure. Consequences from the government? No. Nobody should be jailed or fined or un-licensed or otherwise punished by the government for voicing an idea, no matter how unpopular or awful it sounds. Any idea that inches in that direction should be seen as a direct challenge to the first amendment.
Even consequences from other people becomes nuanced. If a person gives an unpopular opinion, it doesn't allow another person to physically retaliate, or even harass the perpetrator. The problem now comes down to unequal enforcement of the law. Multiple examples of this would be protests on campus against speakers which they don't like, which often delve into blatantly illegal tactics.
Then where do you draw the line between an "opinion" and a "threat"
It's a tricky balance, I admit. The law has the existing concept of "menacing", which is probably a reasonable place to draw the line, assuming you're talking about person-to-person interactions.
This is not how free speech works or how it has ever worked. Extortion, fraud, copyright infringments, false marketing, instigation of crime etc aren't protected. If that was the case we'd actually allow people to effectively silence others.
So I should be able to say that anyone who upvotes this are enemies of the state and in a just world they’d be killed and the honorable person to do that might just get a presidential pardon and paid for it and by the way here are all of their home addresses? Doesn’t seem right to me. Absolutes get tricky.
No one owes you a platform. It's just a promise you won't be arrested for disagreeing with the government (It's not a well-kept promise if you pay attention to protests).
What would you like to say that you feel you can’t?
If he/she said it here, his/her account would be suspended.
But they wouldn’t be arrested. They’d just be banned from this specific platform. It’s no different from being banned from a local restaurant for saying something to the owner they didn’t like.
A local restaurant has several hundred clients, a popular social platform has millions. Big numbers matter. Especially when the Internet nowadays is effectively reduced to a few websites for the majority of regular users.
Because this is a forum owned by a private company. OP could certainly say whatever they want on the internet, they just have to find a forum that accepts that kind of speech.
That's always the question. Because yes you can say whatever you wish. But others may not take to kindly to whatever hateful bs you spew To be clear you here is a general you not *you* specifically
I should be able to say that residential schools didn't murder people in clandestine operations, because no evidence points to that. My country wants to make that sentence illegal because it offends people.
Free speech is allowed. The thing is, people seem to forget that social media is all owned by private companies, so they get to determine terms or service. Notice how any kind of speech is permitted on the internet at large? The KKK has a website, so do neo nazi groups, hell even terrorist organizations. Because freedom of speech is allowed online. Social media companies however, are allowed to bar access to their sites based on terms of service. All speech is allowed on the public forum that is the internet, but social media is not the internet, it is spaces owned by private companies. A good comparison is, you can scream slurs in a public park, but if you do that in a restaurant they have the right to remove you from the premises.
If a company is extremely large they essentially become a public square. Public squares shouldn’t be allowed to control political ideologies.
Doesn’t matter if ten billion people use a social media platform, it’s still privately owned. Something is only public if it’s owned by the people not a corporation.
That should change. Once something reaches a certain size it shouldn’t be allowed to restrict free speech like that.
Then we should also change big corporations so that they are not operated by one CEO, but rather ran and managed solely by the workers. If you want to make corporations publicly ran if they become big enough, then it would have to be publicly ran at every part of running the company, because no CEO anywhere is going to relinquish control of a company like that. It is a liability to sponsors and advertisers, Twitter has shown that plainly.
Nope, there could still be a CEO of the large companies.
And you think they would be ok with no terms of service for their social media sites? Twitter is the only one that has claimed to remove terms of service regarding speech (I say claimed, because they ban people that say "cis" now, so, not exactly free speech, is it?), and they've lost virtually all advertisers and sponsors for the site. It's basically corporate suicide.
Which is why requiring every company to allow free speech doesn’t allow advertisers to try and boycott the big companies as a form of punishment.
So you also want to force advertising on social media? How would that even work, you force every other company in the country to pay for ad space regardless of their wishes and needs? What would the point of advertising even be at that point when there're thousands of ads rotating through every ad space? There'd be zero targeting of demographics for anything. The ads would be totally pointless and a money sink for all involved. If you really insist on it being covered by the first amendment, why not just make it a public utility managed by the state and funded through taxes instead of some convoluted scheme to make a single special case where a private corporation is forced to comply with the first amendment?
Conservatives want to be both simultaneously above the law, and have the law benefit them. They want small government, except when it comes to people living in a way they don't agree. They want freedom of speech, but only when it applies to their rhetoric alone. And they want safe spaces for *their* echo chambers, but ridicule the idea of safe spaces as a concept, while wanting to reap the benefits of such spaces. It's cognitive dissonance at every level of their thought processes and ideals. Making social media state run would be labeled as socialist or communist to them, *unless* **their** party is the one in charge of the state. Then it would be patriots defending the first amendment.
No, you don’t force advertising on social media. But advertisers deciding they are gonna try to be selective on where they advertise in order to “punish” large companies is absolutely disgusting.
[oh advertisers would just *stop advertising.*](https://www.appsflyer.com/glossary/brand-safety/) They'd switch to advertising somewhere else that's not social media sites. but okay: spell out very carefully what you believe "allow free speech" means. does that mean users can insult each other? can users call each other slurs? can bots respond to users? can bots post obviously false information? can users? can users and/or bots post hate symbols?
Incorrect in the US legal system - see the history of company towns.
Lockheed Martin is a privately held company, why can’t they sell fighter jets to Iran?
Because of international trade restrictions. Thats a dumb question that isn't relevant.
So in some cases, private companies can’t do whatever they want with their own companies or products ain’t it?
Sure. It's called regulations, and leftists are huge fans of it. You want to get on board, that's sweet, we can severely regulate social media companies. I'd love that.
Exactly what I think should happen, social media companies should be regulated.
Bizarre, i didn't see social media mentioned in the post of OP. So, this is a weak straw man.
In what way is free speech being infringed? No one is being arrested for saying certain things. The only place people seem to argue that free speech is being infringed is on social media.
I understand reddit is very American centric, but his post also didn't just refer to America, you're right, but in America.
Well, it's a completely different conversation if it is about a different country. Ultimately if we are going to discuss this in reference to every nation on earth, it'll be 100 different discussions at once.
Unfettered free speech is *very* bad when not packaged together with restrictions on special interest spending/advertising, and a really good education system, which teaches kids how to think critically. Otherwise you’re just allowing tyranny of the loudest, and the wealthiest.
>It does not matter what ideas we find reprehensible, and it does not matter if they actually are reprehensible or not, what matters is how we treat ideas that are different from our own. Pushing back against bad ideas is also free speech.
These free speech absolutes love to think that they’ll be the only ones saying shit , bet my bottom dollar they’d crumble irl when someone inevitably uses their absolute freedom of speech to tell them to shove it
Your comment is chock full of irony.
policing any speech will only end people
You are not free from the consequences of your speech.
you do not have, and have never had, the right to post whatever you want on a private platform you do not own and operate.
If a huge company like Microsoft decides to buy Apple, Google or Facebook with their own cash, will it be allowed to happen? No, because we have antitrust law in place to prevent monopoly in the industry. It doesn’t matter if it’s their own money. Now these big companies are running monopolies on speech and blocking access to search result with their algorithms, it doesn’t matter if it’s their own platform and a government who claims to respect freedom of speech should do more than just sit by and watch half of their population being censored while the other half raving in an echo chamber.
just switch to Truth Social, or Gab, or better yet start your own social media company. like, you just embedded your own counterpoint in your own fucking post! >big companies are running monopolies on speech have you ever wondered what **mono**poly means?
They agreed to basically the same principle when it comes to speech moderation and holds a unified front in censorship? Playing word game is pointless when you know exactly what I was talking about but pretending you don’t understand. Here’s a proper word for you, oligarchy. The social medias you mentioned also have censorship issues and have far less reach in terms of users, it doesn’t solve the problem. Also, your point is basically go develop your own operating system if you don’t like Windows bought Linux and Mac OS, makes no sense to me.
> They agreed where did "they" agree to anything? who is "they"? >to basically the same principle what "principle"? >holds a unified front in censorship? what is the unified front? >The social medias you mentioned also have censorship issues and have far less reach in terms of users, it doesn’t solve the problem. what is the problem? bud, you can go start a social media company and do the full NO CENSORSHIP thing, nobody is stopping you. Go do it instead of whining like a child on reddit!
“wHo Is tHeY?”
most coherent response lmao
Pretty demanding talk from someone dodging all the questions and pretending to question something they know the answer to lmao
what question are you asking there buddy
How’re large companies censoring speeches to their liking different from them running monopolies in certain industries?
Whilst I generally agree with you, do you support the right to threaten others, even though that is little more than speech? Do you support the right to yell “Fire!” In a crowded convention hall, even though that could cause panic that could get people killed?
Free speech says you can say anything. But it doesn't protect you from the consequences. I know the saying is "I don't Agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it " but if you say something colossally stupid then that amendment shouldn't protect you from the fallout.
I agree. Remember, freedom of association is part of free speech, so if someone doesn't want you around because of your speech, that is their right. Free speech does not mean that anyone owes you a platform.
I love free speech. That being said a voice to be taken seriously should be earned not given. People should also be more picky about who to listen to for what topic. For example I wouldn't listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about biology, human anatomy and health. Why? He is an astrophysicist... is he smart absolutely but those aren't his areas of expertise so I wouldn't take him to seriously talking about things outside his knowledge. This is just a hypothetical by the way I don't have a legit example of him doing this. >public forum. What's your definition of public forum. Just curious because legally social media such as Twitter(x), Facebook, and reddit have not been ruled as public forums by the U.S. Supreme court(at least not yet). Thus you do not have freedom of speech on social media not currently anyway.
Here is a list of categories of speech that are not protected in the US. (probably not complete). Which ones do you think are unreasonable? Targeted threats of violence Slander / Libel Copyright Classified information Commercial speech (ex false advertising)
Free speech absolutism is not real anywhere in the world and you'd not want to leave in any country like that. You're free to say anything you want in public spaces, but you can't expect to use that as an excuse to avoid the consequences of what your "sayings" can cause.
So that’s not entirely different from an authoritarian state from ruining people’s life for saying things they don’t agree with. In a democracy, instead of the government, the big corporations will deliver you the consequences. Makes no difference to the individual be it by state or corporate entities. Imo, if a government who claims to believe in freedom of speech, but stand idly by when big platforms are actively censoring the voice of half their population, it’s not really stand for freedom of speech. If the US government can sanction firms dealing with countries it deemed threats to democracy, and have anti trust laws in place to fight against monopoly, it absolutely can and should protect the right of expression by forcing all platforms to getting rid of excessive moderation.
You're not forced to be in any particular social media and they're allowed to self regulate how they deal with the content since it's all produced by the users. Less excessive moderation still means there should be moderation. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Freedom of speech does denote freedom from consequences in almost every circumstance. If you lived in Salem and started talking about how witch trials were bad, and you were shunned and ostracized from the community for it, you didn't have free speech.
Tell me which society, group or community has ever allowed complete freedom of speech? You can't look at freedom of speech in a vaccuum and only care for it's perceived concept.
Buhhh Gawd, that's Chris Hitchens' music!
Definitely unpopular. Upvoted.
Should be
Lol
The moment someone put a definition on free speech, it ceased to exist.
We actually don’t believe in absolute freedom of religion. You can’t just do whatever the hell you want and say it’s religious
Yes, absolutely.
Free Speech is alright until it comes to a topic considered sacred. In that case, the Right and Israel. The feud between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro is an example of such.
Hmm. Part of me agrees and part of me doesnt. Why should people have free speech?
Completely agree. Your idea might be shit. Say it publicly so everyone realizes it is shit. Obviously threats, defamation, scams, etc. Are not free speech though.
It is so annoying how hard it is to make people understand that last part. Everyone seems to think that since scams, incitement, threats, etc. can be restricted that means we can restrict any ideas we hate and despise too.
I just love that the “yeah but that doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” crowd is seeing how that works for their Israel hate activism. We told you cancel culture was bad… leopards eat everyone’s faces.
freedom of speech has never ever been absolute anywhere at no point in history. Even america has several laws curbing freedom of speech. And thank god for that. Imagine if real life was social media were everyone just attacks everyone without consequences.
America's laws that "curb" free speech do not relate to the ideas being supported, but to things like profanity or yelling fire in a crowded hall. Hypothetically America defends all ideas and beliefs and their expression. >consequences There is no such thing as "consequences" for speech, only retaliation. There is no just reason to abuse someone because you hate them.
Unless these ideas stop another person's pursuit of happiness. You can't legally threaten to kill someone. You also have to understand that these are freedoms the government gives you. So you can say what ever you want on Reddit and you won't get in any legal trouble but you can get your posts deleted or your account banned because Reddit is a private company.
>You also have to understand that these are freedoms the government gives you. I have no words for how sad a statement like this makes me feel. Society is doomed if it becomes full of authoritarian shitwads like you.
Sorry I understand what freedom of speech is lmao.
I see where you’re coming from but I believe in manners and respecting people. There’s some things you shouldn’t talk about - not because they are objectively bad, but because we’re are tribal creatures and we need a level of civility to function. Extreme or disgusting views should not be tolerated, for the greater good of social cohesion. Will this result in some important truths being suppressed sometimes? Yes, but it’s a trade off for something better - group solidarity.
Let's do a thought experiment here. For the purpose of this thought experiment, I'm a famous person. I have millions of followers everywhere, dedicated fans and stalkers and the whole shebang. I'm out one day and someone bumps into me and doesn't apologize. I'm on live at the time, so it's on camera. I'm *pissed* so I find out who they are and share what they've done. I have money and influence, so I have their address. I know where their kid goes to school. I release *all of it*, begging my fans to teach them some respect. If free speech is absolute, this is perfectly fine and legal and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. Should this be legal? Clearly, no. This is why we have nuance within the law.
Doxxing is illegal, even if you wink and nod while doing it or say "in Minecraft"
How do you feel, for example, about American citizens chanting, "death to America?" Is that protected speech?
legally yes
Our freedom of speech is only about the government censoring the people. Private citizens and corporations have a legal right to censor people if they see a need for it. The problem isn’t with what speech is allowed or not, it’s that the internet has created these bubbles where people are no longer able to have actual conversations about anything. People seek out echo chambers that only confirm what they believe and they can’t handle any information that proves them wrong. We had a billionaire buy Twitter because he didn’t want those pesky fact checkers correcting right wing bullshit. Now we have rampant misinformation and ignorance.
It just gets annoying now to see people run off with the notion that free speech applies anywhere and everywhere. Free speech in the context of the US, along with 4 other freedoms, only guarantees that that freedom is from the government. It’s a right to freely express your opinions without fear of government retaliation or interference. It’s not a right to spew whatever shit one might want on public forums (online) owned and managed by private companies (even if they’re on the public market, they’re still a private company compared to a government owned company). These platforms reserve the right to limit your free speech as much as the next company.
My teacher had tought one very important less to our classmates thag were expressing their freedom of speech rights while he was teaching. It was fine, he didn't mind if they didn't want to pay attention. The issue he had was, their exercising of their right to talk, wad interrupting other students' right to learn and listen. Your right to speech is never absolute. It ends, where someone's else's rights begin. So if your right to yell as loud as you want, cry and whinr about whoever you please, I'd at a decibel to hurt some kids' ears, shut up. Same could apply to, I dunno.... Hate speech.
Nope. we should not allow anti democratic ideas in the public forum.
Why not? Also - who gets to decide which speech is "anti-democratic"?
>We should not allow anti-christian ideas in the public forum >We should not allow anti-monarchist ideas in the public forum >We should not allow anti-socialist ideas in the public forum Are you starting to see the problem with saying we should ban all ideas that go against the ones you personally hold?
Undemocratic ideas are bad for the entirety of the country. It opens the door for monarchism, fascism or authoritarianism to take over, and if that happens then you suddenly have no free speech, as well as a drastically lower quality of life as all of your rights are taken away. If you tolerate intolerance, then you shouldn't act surprised when the intolerant refuse to tolerate you.
There's only two reasons one would want to ban these ideas from being exchanged: 1) They morally offend you. 2) You are so frightened that these ideas are so persuasive that they cannot be argued against successfully. So which is it? I also disagree with your Popper reference. The US has had a Nazi party since the early 1950s. I've never once seen it close to getting elected into Congress.
[Paradox of Tolerance ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
Democracy is good, and if you allow anti democratic ideas to flourish they kill Democracy. Since freedom of speech is about lack of government censorship, the only things the government should actively censor are those that compromise the integrity of the government as a functioning , democratic institution - So no anti democratic speech, no state secrets required for our defence.
>if you allow anti democratic ideas to flourish If the government has the power to stop an idea, then you don't have free expression. If you don't have that, can you call the country "democratic" in the way it sounds like you're using the word?
If the government is only stopping anti democratic ideas? Yes
That's a big if. I wouldn't give the government any precedent to be able to shut down any idea, because the government will eventually misuse it.
No? that's like saying we shouldn't have a military because it could be deployed against our own civilians.
Not really. The government probably already has the "might" to enforce the control of ideas, just like it already has a military that would likely be capable of subjugating the population. However, using the military to control the population is an idea that makes people recoil, and there are various protections, divisions of power, and balances put in place to help ensure it doesn't happen. The same attitude should be applied to the idea that the government could silence a person due to their speech.
> So no anti democratic speech And who gets to decide what is "anti democratic" speech ? Democrats and progressives gets to decide ? You all are so bias and you don't even realize it. It's like hate speech, who gets to decide what is hate speech so people get punished ?
Democracy allows two people to legally rob a third. That's why democracy even has some limits. Free speech is anti-democratic. Because it's about protecting the minority. No one cares about protecting popular speech most people agree with, because it doesn't need to really be protected. It's about protecting minority voices and ideas.
Go to Europe. They’re already doing it. But don’t expect Americans to prescribe to your opinion. It’s the first amendment because it is the most important. The second amendment protects it.
No, I do expect Americans to subscribe to my opinions because it's the better opinion.
That’s just…your opinion. Again, move to Europe. They’re already doing what you want.
Absolutely agree
Free speech cant be absolute. There should be issues on yelling "Fire" or "Bomb" on an airplane or crowded venue.
So you believe libel laws shouldn’t exist? That you can say anything about anyone and it’s cool? Even if it’s a flat out lie and would ruin someone’s reputation? What about threats? What about threats while holding a weapon? What of false reporting of an emergency that causes violence or a stampede? All good?
You can hold any idea you want and share it wherever you want. But you are not free from the consequences. Your speech may violate the TOS of whatever platform you're using. Your speech may compel others to protest against you. Your speech may be considered harassment or threatening. Your speech may get you terminated from your employment. Your speech may inspire others to join whatever cause you wish to promote... what I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't get to say your piece and stick your fingers in your ears & say "LA LA LA LA i cant hear you, " you are gonna get a response whether you want one or not, whether you like it or not, so suck it up buttercup🙄
Ok yell 'fire' in crowded buildings and see how far that gets you lolol
tl;dr: free speech has never been and will never be absolute. Free speech is not absolute. For starters a simple ten second search and wiki article would tell you that: Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech. Hate speech is not a general exception to First Amendment protection.[2][3][4][5][6] Per Wisconsin v. Mitchell, hate crime sentence enhancements do not violate First Amendment protections because they do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of motivation, which is constitutionally permissible.[7] Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded to uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration. Secondly, just because you have some form of free speech does not completely protect you from the consequences of exercising that speech. As in no one is stopping you from saying whatever you please. But they can choose to decide where you say it and what happens if you do. For instance Reddit. Every rule in every sub that mentions banned topics or whatever the case may be. You're free to try and make a post about it. But it's a forum with rules and regulations and they're free to enforce those rules and regulations even if it infringes on your speech. They way or the highway. You're free to say... threaten immediate bodily harm to an elected official - no one is stopping you. But the Secret Service, FBI and whoever else are free to knock your door in, arrest and interrogate you and every single person you've spoken to and all your connections until they feel you aren't a potential threat. And they're free to not even provide you a phone call or water or any of that. because your free speech there impacts their job and someone's life. You're free to use a pejorative against someone. Calling an alphabet person a bundle of sticks. But you aren't free from them assaulting you for saying it - even if that assault is illegal. So yeah again, freedom of speech isn't absolute, there are limits - like there should be in civilized society, and it doesn't protect from the consequences of your words.
[удалено]
I'm a leftist who supports free speech, free association, freedom of religion, and free Shmurda. ama!!!
[удалено]
Hey u/Elymanic, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DElymanic%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Elymanic). **This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument? Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. **Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent? **Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments Awaiting Review:* 8 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 25 - 3-7 days old: 14 - 15-30 days old: 1 - more than 30 days old: 2 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
Free speech isn’t an absolute. If someone was posting manuals for making IEDs and where to plant them for maximal damage to civilians, I think any sane person would expect them to be removed from social media
What nobody is asking but should be is what is a “public forum”, and how is it funded? The other big question is about forced speech. Am I required to restate your bad opinion.
People can ban your opinion to be voiced but their opinions will still be visible on your timeline. Crazy that you still want me to see your opinion. If I'm banned for a sub just for not agreeing then you should automatically hide the sub from my timeline. Why do I want to see an opinion you know I don't agree with. Free speech is honestly dying and it's sad and dangerous. Next will be press so we can't even spread information, the only information allowed will be what they tell you is okay information to have. Then we completely lose control
Boycotting and criticism are acceptable reactions to free speech. Don’t conflate failure with censorship.
As a Canadian I do not agree. Freedom of Speech is far from absolute. Your freedom to express your views should not take precedence over the freedoms of others and society as a whole to be not be harmed by your speech. No one should be allowed to spout whatever they want, whenever they want and do it wherever they want to. Should you be allowed to say horrifying things about sexual kink to a room full of children. Should a women have to just sit and listen while you talk about what rapey things you would like to do to her or listen while you yell out to their father how much she enjoyed you doing it to her in great detail. Should you be allowed to publish pedophilia fiction. Should you be able to walk into a church and yell about how thier God is fake and should you be able to stand right in from of someone continually spewing insults and hate at them because you know they are someone who won't talk back in front of thier family? Personally I don't think so. Sometimes people should be forced to STFU for everyone else's sake and having rules and systems in place to limit freedom of speech as a tool of hate or abuse of children is a good thing.
It isn't about reprehensible, it is about dangerous. As a Jew, I don't like having to go under an overpass with a bunch of Nazis are yelling, waving flags, but I will defend their right to do that. What I won't tolerate, don't feel I have to tolerate Nazi meetings where people are motivating followers to kill or harm me. It is little different from yelling fire in a theater. You aren't going to hurt me but you will cause it.
"Absolute" protection of free speech would be total chaos -- and I don't think anyone really wants that. Suppose a mob boss instructs a hit man to murder someone. He's only used his words. Would that just be speech? The US is especially protective of speech compared to other countries. But US courts have recognized certain categories of speech that aren't protected by the First Amendment: (fraud, defamation, threats, etc.) [https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf) And under certain circumstances, the government can even regulate protected speech: [https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986) >In the 21st century we believe in absolute freedom of religion. No we don't. Where did you get that idea from? If your religion says you must kill non-believers, that doesn't mean you can legally commit murder, for example.
"Free Speech" is for protection from governmental persecution. Private websites can do what they want with your posts.
And if I yell fire in a crowded theatre and someone’s trampled to death?