- #1
Adam
- 65
- 1
Freedom of speech. Must it be complete to exist at all? If it is limited, who has the right to limit it, and why? What if their principles are completely different to mine? What if they abuse their power to limit it?
Adam said:Freedom of speech. Must it be complete to exist at all? If it is limited, who has the right to limit it, and why? What if their principles are completely different to mine? What if they abuse their power to limit it?
selfAdjoint said:We had a test problem in the US last week. Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court gave a speech and the marshals who are assigned to protect him destroyed reporter's tapes of the speech that they were making. After a free-speech hoo hah, Scalia apologized two days later, but he asserted he had a first amendment right to have his speech not copied. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech (though the courts have held it's not absolute), but this is the first time we've heard somebody say it guarantees a right not to have your words taken down and published.
kat said:It's not the first time I've seen this as an issue. I've been to see speakers on different occasions where taping (either video or audio) were not allowed. You were able to take notes if you wished but no taping. You were, of course, allowed to order the tapes that the speaker was marketing $$.
We've had this discussion before: just like the last time we had it (it hasn't changed) no freedom can ever be absolute. This according to Locke (the first to adequately define modern rights), the US constitution, and the US supreme court.Adam said:Freedom of speech. Must it be complete to exist at all? If it is limited, who has the right to limit it, and why? What if their principles are completely different to mine? What if they abuse their power to limit it?
Right, we actually agree on something.phatmonky said:And if this is in a setting that is paid for by someone besides the tax payer, or in public, then that is their right.
You are paying admission to the setting they create, and thus the rules in that setting.
If that person gives that speech in public, or you can get that recording while on public property (legally there), then tough crap for them! Record away!
Freedom of speech is the right to express oneself without fear of censorship or retaliation. It is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to share their opinions, beliefs, and ideas freely in public without interference from the government or other individuals.
Yes, freedom of speech is not an absolute right and can be limited in certain situations. For example, speech that incites violence, promotes hate speech, or poses a threat to national security can be restricted. Additionally, defamation, obscenity, and copyright infringement are also considered limitations to freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are often used interchangeably, but they have slightly different meanings. Freedom of speech refers specifically to verbal or written communication, while freedom of expression encompasses a broader range of forms of expression, including artistic expression, symbolic speech, and non-verbal communication.
Freedom of speech can be abused when it is used to spread false information, incite violence, or discriminate against certain groups of people. Hate speech and propaganda are also forms of abuse of freedom of speech that can have harmful consequences on individuals and society as a whole.
Private organizations, such as social media platforms, have the right to set their own guidelines and restrictions on freedom of speech within their platforms. However, they must abide by the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate. This means that they cannot censor speech that is protected under the law, but they can moderate and restrict speech that violates their terms of service.