Is Freedom of Speech Truly Achievable Through Influence and Control?

[Lisa!]

What do you think of freedom of speech? Do you think humans should have the right to say whatever they want and why? Do you think we have freedom of speech through internet? I don't think so.


Persoanlly I think everyone has the freedom of speech, but I'm not sure if they have the freedom after speech!

 

[orangeSLICE]

I don't think that can be said any better.

 

[russ_watters]

Speech is just the vocal manifestation of thought, so freedom of speech is essentially tied to freedom of thought. As such, it is considered one of the most basic of rights (the usual cavats on threats, etc. apply).

The internet is an enabler - it is a place to post your thoughts - but the right itself is granted/protected by government.

edit: The difference between "granted" and "protected" is that countries like the US consider rights to be fundamental or intrinsic and therefore not something for a government to give or take, but only to protect or not. Priveledges are things that are granted.

 

[selfAdjoint]

edit: The difference between "granted" and "protected" is that countries like the US consider rights to be fundamental or intrinsic and therefore not something for a government to give or take, but only to protect or not. Priveledges are things that are granted.

As the practice of the law works out, I think this is a distinction without a difference. The Bill of Rights can always be interpreted to the taste of the power elite, and in fact freedom of speech has been brutally curtailed in the US on a number of occasions.

 

[arildno]

Speech is just the vocal manifestation of thought, so freedom of speech is essentially tied to freedom of thought.

Unless "vocal manifestation" of something is in itself something which you regard as in principle regulable.
For example, neighbours might complain that a tenant plays/sings his music too loudly, whereas he defends himself that playing music loudly is just his "vocal manifestation" of his pursuit of happiness.

Is the police justified in demanding he lowers the volume?
I think they are..

 

[Lisa!]

I don't know what you mean by freedom of speech. Do you think that it means humans should have the right to say whatever they want in every place and every time?

Speech is just the vocal manifestation of thought, so freedom of speech is essentially tied to freedom of thought. As such, it is considered one of the most basic of rights (the usual cavats on threats, etc. apply).

But there's a different. Nobody could understand what we're thinking about, unless we share our thoughts with others. And our thought usually can't hurt anyone unless we act base on them.

 

[russ_watters]

I think both of you are missing the intent of "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is about the content of the speech, and therefore, is directly connected to freedom of thought.

Lisa, governments that restrict freedom of speech do so for exactly that reason: they see thoughts themselves as dangerous things.

 

[TRCSF]

I'm all for it assuming it doesn't directly violate other people's rights, e.g. screaming fire in a crowded theater or making a death threat.

Freedom of speech is certainly available on the internet. Although private owners of websites certainly have a right to edit their site as they see fit.

Why, what you get in trouble for?

 

[Lisa!]

I think both of you are missing the intent of "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is about the content of the speech, and therefore, is directly connected to freedom of thought.

I know what you mean. You have to think about something first and then talk about it. But I think you can have the freedom of thought most of time since nobody can read your mind.
Let's be more specific: You can think whatever you want about religion and probably discuss it somewhere, but you're not allowed to discuss religion in this site, can you? Here you have the freedom of thought but you don't have the freedom of speech!

Lisa, governments that restrict freedom of speech do so for exactly that reason: they see thoughts themselves as dangerous things.

Yeah, for sure they don't want people think in a way that is dangerous for them, but they can't make all people to think like that. It's difficult to take people's freedom of thought. I think all they can do is , stop people to speak their mind in public. They try to take the freedom of thought by fooling people and do their best to keep them fool all the time, that's the only way that they have to take people's freedom of thought. But as Lincoln's said " You can fool all people sometime and some people all the time, but you can't fool all people all the time".

 

[arildno]

I think both of you are missing the intent of "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is about the content of the speech, and therefore, is directly connected to freedom of thought.

Nope.
Already, you have shown that your "just a vocal manifestation" idea was a mere over-simplification.
Now, you have suddenly altered your position to say that what is "essential" is the "content" of the speech, but that is something quite different from a vocal manifestation. (I might accept that it is the externally verbalized manifestation of your thoughts, though).

Furthermore, do you think yourself entitled to go to court and penalize your employer if he or she constantly comes up to you and whispers stuff like "I want to suck your ****, russ?"
Most would say that yes, this type of sexual harassment is not allowed even though it is merely the expression of the person's thoughts to you.
That is, some sort of compensation from your employer is in order because he/she overstepped a line of talking.
That is, it is recognized that there ARE limits to the freedom of speech (in this case, you are not to sexually harass others through either deeds or words).


The morally crucial difference between vocalizing your thoughts and just having them, is that by speaking, you are INTERACTING with other humans, whereas by just having thoughts you are not.
But it is precisely the field of human interactions that may or may not be regulated.

 

[russ_watters]

Nope.
Already, you have shown that your "just a vocal manifestation" idea was a mere over-simplification.

Huh? How so?

Now, you have suddenly altered your position to say that what is "essential" is the "content" of the speech, but that is something quite different from a vocal manifestation. (I might accept that it is the externally verbalized manifestation of your thoughts, though).

Sorry, I didn't change the intent of my post. That should be clear enough from a comparison of the thesis of each:

Post 1:
-Speech is just the vocal manifestation of thought, so freedom of speech is essentially tied to freedom of thought.
Post 2:
-Freedom of speech is about the content of the speech, and therefore, is directly connected to freedom of thought.

Same point, slightly different wording.

Furthermore, do you think yourself entitled to go to court and penalize your employer if he or she constantly comes up to you and whispers stuff like "I want to suck your ****, russ?"
Most would say that yes, this type of sexual harassment is not allowed even though it is merely the expression of the person's thoughts to you.
That is, some sort of compensation from your employer is in order because he/she overstepped a line of talking.

That is, it is recognized that there ARE limits to the freedom of speech (in this case, you are not to sexually harass others through either deeds or words).

arildno, I didn't say that all speech was protected! In fact, you have no freedom of speech whatsoever in your job. And even if you did, sexual harassment still wouldn't qualify.

Did you miss the caveat in the parenthases in my first post?

The morally crucial difference between vocalizing your thoughts and just having them, is that by speaking, you are INTERACTING with other humans, whereas by just having thoughts you are not.
But it is precisely the field of human interactions that may or may not be regulated.

You are correct, but that changes nothing about what I said!

To put it more simply, your thoughts (and therefore your speech) are protected as long as you don't use them to harm other people.

edit: I think the confusion here might be because I am talking about the basis for freedom of speech, while you are focusing on the limits of freedom of speech. But the basis needs to be dealt with first.

 

[russ_watters]

I know what you mean. You have to think about something first and then talk about it. But I think you can have the freedom of thought most of time since nobody can read your mind.

Yes. And as a matter or fact, the POWs in Vienam reported that what allowed them to keep their sanity (and most did), was that they started "living inside their minds". It is true that the only part of your life that you have complete control over is what is going on inside your head.

Let's be more specific: You can think whatever you want about religion and probably discuss it somewhere, but you're not allowed to discuss religion in this site, can you? Here you have the freedom of thought but you don't have the freedom of speech!

Well, the reason the Bill of Rights mentions freedom of speech is exactly for the reason in the first part of your post: you can't get inside someone's head unless they let you. So the Bill of Rights (and the rules of this site) exist for reasons of practicality, above all.

Yeah, for sure they don't want people think in a way that is dangerous for them, but they can't make all people to think like that. It's difficult to take people's freedom of thought. I think all they can do is , stop people to speak their mind in public. They try to take the freedom of thought by fooling people and do their best to keep them fool all the time, that's the only way that they have to take people's freedom of thought. But as Lincoln's said " You can fool all people sometime and some people all the time, but you can't fool all people all the time".

Again with the practicality (and you're right) - since you can't control what goes inside someone's head, tyrannical regimes simply silence their words to prevent the ideas from spreading.

 

[arildno]

Since your thoughts cannot harm anyone BY THEMSELVES (at least not in any sense I know of), I'm not sure I follow you here..

As for "freedom of thought", what do you mean by that?
The trivial fact that others are unable to directly force some thought into your head, or actively repress a mental process going on in there?

 

[Lisa!]

Yes. And as a matter or fact, the POWs in Vienam reported that what allowed them to keep their sanity (and most did), was that they started "living inside their minds". It is true that the only part of your life that you have complete control over is what is going on inside your head. Well, the reason the Bill of Rights mentions freedom of speech is exactly for the reason in the first part of your post: you can't get inside someone's head unless they let you. So the Bill of Rights (and the rules of this site) exist for reasons of practicality, above all. Again with the practicality (and you're right) - since you can't control what goes inside someone's head, tyrannical regimes simply silence their words to prevent the ideas from spreading.

It seems that for the first time we have the same idea! Now do you think is there any country in the world that people have the freedom of speech? And do you think humans should have the freedom of speech in every issue and every where?

 

[russ_watters]

Now do you think is there any country in the world that people have the freedom of speech?

You mean absolute freedom of speech? Certainly not. But many places, such as the US, have freedom of speech as close to absolute as is practically possible.

And do you think humans should have the freedom of speech in every issue and every where?

No. Such a thing is pretty much a logical contradiction, since one person's exercising of such a right could interfere with the rights of others.

It seems that for the first time we have the same idea!

It may seem odd that a conservative would support an idea at is pretty much the very essence of liberalism, but where I stand politically is muddled enough that neither side adequately covers it.

Since your thoughts cannot harm anyone BY THEMSELVES (at least not in any sense I know of), I'm not sure I follow you here...

Thoughts can't, but words can, and since the two are linked, affecting (restricting) one is just as good as affecting the other (at least, as far as a government or that guy you're screaming at cares). More to the point, since a government can't directly affect thoughts, they go after the words.

In a free country, thoughts are free and words or actions based on those thoughts are restricted only as much as is necessary to prevent those actions/words/thoughts from harming others.

In a tyranny, governments need to control all 3: words, thoughts, and actions. Just outlawing certain words or actions is not enough: people with unacceptable thoughts are physically separated from society, lest their thoughts inflict others.

 

[Lisa!]

You mean absolute freedom of speech? Certainly not. But many places, such as the US, have freedom of speech as close to absolute as is practically possible.

I hope so! Could you please talk about the limits in US? What should a government do in order to support the freedom of speech?

No. Such a thing is pretty much a logical contradiction, since one person's exercising of such a right could interfere with the rights of others.

I think most of people included me agree with you even tyrannical regimes. They don't let their people to have the freedom of speech because they say you're ruining national rights. For example they say if you critisize the government and oppose its plans , it could have bad affect on the government's reputation and power in the world.

It may seem odd that a conservative would support an idea at is pretty much the very essence of liberalism, but where I stand politically is muddled enough that neither side adequately covers it.

I didn't mean that!

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the US the courts have interpreted protected "speech" to include certain actions, like waving signs, etc. But the problem of conflict between rights of different people becomes great here. For example people opposing abortion used to harass women going into abortion clinics, shoving them , shouting at them, throwing rubber fetuses at them and so on. The Supreme Court held that although the right to free speech is important, the right of the women not to be interfered with trumped it, and certain things (the fetuses) were forbidden, while the protesters were required to gather on the opposite side of the street from the clinic.

Criticising the government is pretty much unrestricted - look at Cindy Sheehan!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I assume 'freedom of speech' in the US refers also to written communication, so is not just vocal manifestation. Right now, in the UK, we are on our way being stripped of some right to speech, targetting religious hate-speech. I find this rather bizarre and needless. It's like the shouting 'fire' in a theatre. Freedom of speech should still defend your right to shout 'fire', but not exonerate you from causing deliberate harm and distress to others. The two can be crowbarred quite effectively. Any regulation of actual expresison of thought, verbal or written, seems more a means of ensuring that, at some point, there is a loophole such that people can be persecuted for expressing thought without causing harm or distress. Or maybe persecuting irritating do-gooders who really did spot a fire.

Freedom of speech as an extention of freedom of thought is interesting, but governments (certain North American ones in particular) have been known to persecute persons for their thoughts rather than words. Mere association to a communist party not too many decades ago could end up with your a55 hauled to some small white room where you'd be intimidated (i.e. threatened with whatever came to hand) into incriminating other thought-criminals. This still goes on to some extent. Of course, this isn't a constitutional issue. The official line would never suggest 'we are policing and restricting thought', but that is essentially what was happening.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Freedom of speech as an extention of freedom of thought is interesting, but governments (certain North American ones in particular) have been known to persecute persons for their thoughts rather than words. Mere association to a communist party not too many decades ago could end up with your a55 hauled to some small white room where you'd be intimidated (i.e. threatened with whatever came to hand) into incriminating other thought-criminals. This still goes on to some extent. Of course, this isn't a constitutional issue. The official line would never suggest 'we are policing and restricting thought', but that is essentially what was happening.

Not to defend HUAC in any way, but members of the CPUS were persecuted not for what they thought, but for what they did - join an organization that was really steered from the USSR and really did have a policy advocating the overthrow of the US government. Expropriating the expropriators was what they called it. They should have been able to advocate overthrow as long as they didn't do anything, but being complete patsies of the Soviets, who could depend on that?

 

[russ_watters]

One little thing to add to that: I think few people would defend the general concept of McCarthyism - It was not consistent with the Bill of Rights for more than one reason. But that doesn't mean that there weren't (as SA pointed out) other actual threats that the government was justified in dealing with.

 

[russ_watters]

I assume 'freedom of speech' in the US refers also to written communication, so is not just vocal manifestation. Right now, in the UK, we are on our way being stripped of some right to speech, targetting religious hate-speech. I find this rather bizarre and needless. It's like the shouting 'fire' in a theatre. Freedom of speech should still defend your right to shout 'fire', but not exonerate you from causing deliberate harm and distress to others. The two can be crowbarred quite effectively. Any regulation of actual expresison of thought, verbal or written, seems more a means of ensuring that, at some point, there is a loophole such that people can be persecuted for expressing thought without causing harm or distress. Or maybe persecuting irritating do-gooders who really did spot a fire.

I don't know the specifics of the law in the UK, but hate speech is illegal in the US when it is considered an overt threat.

Ie, there was a recent (in the past decade or two) case involving the KKK burning a cross on private property near a major highway. The result of that one was, essentially, its ok to burn a cross on private property and have a fun party where you and your bigot friends talk about how much you hate blacks, but it isn't ok to do it on private property in front of a major highway where people can see it. Doing it in a place where people can see it gives the appearance of an overt threat.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Not to defend HUAC in any way, but members of the CPUS were persecuted not for what they thought, but for what they did - join an organization that was really steered from the USSR and really did have a policy advocating the overthrow of the US government. Expropriating the expropriators was what they called it. They should have been able to advocate overthrow as long as they didn't do anything, but being complete patsies of the Soviets, who could depend on that?

Hmmmm. Perhaps not a topic I should have brought up on a largely US-populated forum. Americans have a rather different view of communism than the rest of the world. The kneejerk association twixt commie and ruskie isn't always applicable though. In fact, for the most part, it is probable bogus. Being a supporter of the communist manifesto or socialist government did not necessarily make you a potential Russia defector. Some people simply believed it was a better form of government for the country they lived in. If they expressed this to the wrong person, they were persecuted for it. It wasn't just people who were members of parties associated with existing communist countries who were bollocked, nor even just members of home-grown, unaffiliated groups. People who were deemed too left-leaning by interrogated communist-sympathisers, particularly in Hollywood, were also persecuted. These people were either broken (i.e. successfully forced to submit to the will of their government by snitching others) or were blacklisted or otherwise punished by endless character assassination (Jean Seberg a good example). Why? To deter others from having similar philosophies. Think how we want you to think or suffer the consequences. The likelihood of involvement in some future USSR-spurred subtle coup was not the issue - the protection of the democratic government by irradicating any preference of other forms was the goal. Very much like 1984, but using negative connotation via propoganda and brainwashing rather than eradicating language that might facilitate dangerous thought. The irony is the similarity of this policy of thought-policing to the 'evil' communist countries they so feared - be it fascist, communist or democratic, totalitarianism is totalitarianism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The kneejerk association twixt commie and ruskie isn't always applicable though.

Did I say, or even imply, that it was? The connection of the CPUS to the USSR was (a) obvious at the time (from the slavish following of the ever-twisting party line by its leaders), and (b) amply documented by evidence available since the USSR fell. I said NOTHING about marxism or communism in general.

 

[Smurf]

I agree with Russ about the definition of freedom of speech.

Ideas are much more dangerous than guns. We don't let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

 

[arildno]

Thoughts can't, but words can, and since the two are linked, affecting (restricting) one is just as good as affecting the other (at least, as far as a government or that guy you're screaming at cares). More to the point, since a government can't directly affect thoughts, they go after the words.

Since thoughts are necessarily free (no one can control them), there is no sense in which the protection of "freedom of thought" is a meaningful phrase.
Only the "freedom of speech" (and of course, acts) can be protected or assaulted.

 

[Lisa!]

Well I think freedom of thought could be protected by protecting the freedom of speech. For example by having the independent media.
And the freedom of thought could be seriously threatend if people wouldn't have the freedom of speech. You can't say someone has the freedom of thought when he receives wrong information about most of thing(his country and the world) and he can't challenge the new ideas and even be aware of them.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Did I say, or even imply, that it was? The connection of the CPUS to the USSR was (a) obvious at the time (from the slavish following of the ever-twisting party line by its leaders), and (b) amply documented by evidence available since the USSR fell. I said NOTHING about marxism or communism in general.

But I WAS talking about communism (or even socialism) in general. I said nothing about the CPUS in particular. I guess I misunderstood your argument. Perhaps you thought I was inferring there were no instances of Soviet affiliation among the persecuted? Needless to say, I was not. I'm unsure of the point in your response, sorry.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Since thoughts are necessarily free (no one can control them), there is no sense in which the protection of "freedom of thought" is a meaningful phrase.

I disagree. Our thoughts are being controlled all day every day - just not necessarily by government. You fancy a Big Mac? Chances are, that inclination was not as spontaneous as it felt. Media exists for the most part to control thoughts. Propaganda likewise. And, of course, targetting a particular philosophy to imfringe on human rights will certainly make that philosophy less attractive.

Furthermore, restrict the speech of one generation, you restrict the thoughts of the next.

 

[arildno]

I disagree. Our thoughts are being controlled all day every day - just not necessarily by government. You fancy a Big Mac? Chances are, that inclination was not as spontaneous as it felt. Media exists for the most part to control thoughts. Propaganda likewise. And, of course, targetting a particular philosophy to imfringe on human rights will certainly make that philosophy less attractive.

Furthermore, restrict the speech of one generation, you restrict the thoughts of the next.

There's a difference between influencing and controlling.
Your point is, however, highly important.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

There's a difference between influencing and controlling.

Very true, but the point to influencing thought is to exert some amount of control on the way people think. Look at the afore-mentioned hatred of communism in America. Was this spontaneously arrived at by each individual in the commie-bashing majority, or was it an effect of propaganda? 100% control is not possible, true, but enough control can be imposed via effective influence to manifest the desired effect.

It's analogous with policing. You can't make someone adhere to law, but you can influence them by making transgressions in others or your own past transgressions less attractive. Thus you can, to desired effectiveness, control people's actions. Likewise you can make other actions attractive, such as introducing benefits to getting married. Similarly you can make certain thoughts and philosophies more or less attractive.

It's not 100% effective. If someone was a secret communist in the McCarthy era, to the point where nobody could have guessed it, then they slip under the net. But if they were that secretive then they are of no consequence, so the desired level of control has been achieved.