When is freedom of speech not free?
-
We hear people yelling all the time about being censored and their "freedom of speech" being impinged upon.
Sadly, many of these are politicians holding high government offices. Of all people, they should know that freedom of speech is only protected from government restrictions, the thing that they are a part of. Business, individuals and similar are not required to abide by those same rules the government is.
They have they should always have the ability to control who they serve and what they allow in their establishments.
I realize that this might offend people that want to go there. But we rarely get what we want in life. If the rules that a business have are that bad, then people will vote with their feet and the income of the business will start to hurt.
But to think that you should be able to force your beliefs upon others as a customer is what many would consider self-centered. -
It's also a fact that many of the people who are most vocal about free speech interpret it to mean "free for me, but not for thee". They want the freedom to say whatever they like without consequence, while maintaining their "right" to curtail others.
And, of course, America's version of free speech is different from that in a lot of other countries, where governments have put limits on what can be said if it is deemed harmful to some other group.
-
Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:
It's also a fact that many of the people who are most vocal about free speech interpret it to mean "free for me, but not for thee".
Yes, and I see this regularly here in the United States. Classic case is the theory that LGBTQ books are "bad" for school libraries because they talk about sex (what the certain religious types consider unnatural sex acts) yet they are gleefully happy to allow the Christian Bible (sorry, that nasty Quran is not allowed because it is the religion of those heathen Muslims) in the school library, totally ignoring the fact that it has the same type of items in it that they yell about in the other books.
Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:
And, of course, America's version of free speech is different from that in a lot of other countries, where governments have put limits on what can be said if it is deemed harmful to some other group.
This is being attempted even here in some states. It's like we are entering the era of the "thought police" and restrictions of what can be said.
I do agree that there are some things that are not allowed, like the classic case of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater or threatening to blow up a building. Things that can cause the fear of or threat of actual physical injury can generally be controlled through legislative means. But outlawing the ability of people to talk in a derogatory manner about others is taking it to the extreme. Hurt feelings are not a place that government needs to be doing legislating in. -
Tracy said in When is freedom of speech not free?:
But outlawing the ability of people to talk in a derogatory manner about others is taking it to the extreme. Hurt feelings are not a place that government needs to be doing legislating in.
I agree partially. There should be no right to be offended. However, there are lines which probably shouldn't be crossed. Here in the Great White North, we do limit free speech when that speech promotes or incites violence or genocide against "a defined racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, religious or other identifiable group" which I think is a reasonable limitation. Now you may question what defines violent speech, and that is something left up to the judicial system.
Tracy said in When is freedom of speech not free?:
Classic case is the theory that LGBTQ books are "bad" for school libraries because they talk about sex (what the certain religious types consider unnatural sex acts)
Based on some of the things I've seen going on in America this last while, I'd say there are quite a few on the religious right who are against any mention of sex altogether. I'm not sure what sort of repression they're peddling, but it's very strange.
We do have some those sorts of zealots here too, who want to keep our sensitive children from learning about sex outside of their version of the married, hetrosexual type. (Oddly, the word "consensual" doesn't seem part of that). Fortunately, Canada is primarily a secular nation, so there aren't that many and they have little power.
On the other side of it, we have secularism laws in one province (Quebec -- that's Ke-beck' for those concerned with proper pronounciation) where religious symbols or attire are not allowed for any civil service workers. Their reasoning is all about ensuring freedom from religion (just as important as the freedom of religion) in the workplace. It's also to ensure equality for women, as many see the hijab, for instance, as a symbol of female oppression. It's a contentious law that has many screaming about discrimination. Time will tell how it all plays out.
-
Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:
Here in the Great White North, we do limit free speech when that speech promotes or incites violence or genocide against "a defined racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, religious or other identifiable group" which I think is a reasonable limitation.
Actually, the Constitution for the US makes no clarifications on that... but the judicial process does, which is what interprets our Constitution - depending on the political leanings of the majority of the justices now.
Just the feeling of fear or the feeling of being intimidated is not enough to me. But if you are actively calling for/promoting violence against others, then that is perfectly legitimate.
It's where you get into prosecuting people for saying stuff like "I don't want a <fill in the blank here> living in my neighborhood because they are trashy and bring my property value down and they worship a false God" that I have problems with. And that is happening and being pushed by certain people with what I think of as a tilted outlook.Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:
Based on some of the things I've seen going on in America this last while, I'd say there are quite a few on the religious right who are against any mention of sex altogether
If you do anything other than missionary style, you are a sinner! We all know the good book teaches that sex is only for procreation and not enjoyment!
Let's ignore Proverbs 5:18-19and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. May her breasts satisfy you at all times, may you be intoxicated always by her love
There are always extremist that bring their own thoughts (usually from their upbringing) into play.
That was sort of the reason of the creation of this site. Many peoples attitudes/outlooks are based upon their environment. Sadly, some of them refuse to look at facts that might disagree with their ingrained thoughts.As for the restriction of religious items in the work place, I have no issues with that either. I agree that display of religious items in a government facility is tantamount to supporting religion.
