Freedom of speech, what does it mean to you?

I thought this could be a good idea for a there, given the discussion about the Duck Dynasty.

For me, its a tricky thing. Ones freedom of speech often interferes with someone else's.

Someone can't expect to not have any consequences when they expressed their freedom of speech. Expecting that, is pretty much expecting that other groups should not exercise their freedom of speech, because you expressed yours. Its a double edged sword, you have to be prepared for other groups to express theirs this in response to yours. And yes, I think we are becoming an over reactive society.

I think the generation of entitlement have less understanding of this concept, because they don't think beyond their own freedom of speech and how that afflicts others freedom of speech in response. As well as consequences. I might be wrong, but I think that is how it looks to me.

I do not agree with what phil said and I don't agree with A&E canceling his involvement in the show. But I do agree with his freedom of speech, as I do A&E's freedom of speech. This, the outcome is not what I would have liked to see. But that is the cost of freedom of speech, when another party is excerizing theirs in response. That is simp!y how the freedom of speech system works. All have a right.

Is it right that people lose their income? It sucks, but it happens all the time. If you represent not only you, but your employer, you are subject to their opinion. It just is., whether I agree or not.

He did not have his freedom of speech violated to be honest, he simply suffered consequences. that is probably not true! I think they will be picked up by another network, another example of freedom of speech.

Having your freedom of speech violated is not having you being canceled by your employer, people get fired for saying the wrong thing all the time. Its simply suffering consequences, when others excersising their freedom.

Having your freedom of speech violated is getting arrested for it etc. Not getting fired because your employer decided that it was poor business to not react. They just simply excersized their freedom of speech. I might not agree, but fundamentally, everybody have to have their right to excerise their freedom of speech, however they view if. And of course there will be ethical questions about it on both sides. It really isn't a simple question. At all.

Its the typical ethical class question: is it good for the individual, or for all individuals?


Please, this is ethics, so if anybody cares, refrain from attacks, this is really an ethical question and nobody is wrong. Its how you view ethics.


Sorry for the long post, its just important to me.

 

i think freedom of speech means i can say what i want and not be fearful that ill loose my job or my income.

i can understand in corporate america everyone is sensitive and you have to be pc, but i don't completely agree with it.

 

I agree with that. But the crux is: doesn't that imply that whoever has a direct stake in your expression immediately loose their right of speech?

If you work for someone in an official way as media stars do, don't their employers that have a direct stake have freedom of speech towards your freedom of speech? Don't you have a resposibility?

What is the difference between official media stars and regular people in regular jobs?

I don't think this is a straight issue. Your freedom of speech will almost always infringe on somebody elses freedom of speech.

Besides. In Phil's case, it had nothing to do with PC, it had to do with perceived bottom line losses. Let's be real.

 

The two best things that I've read so far on this whole issue:

http://www.thesuperficial.com/phil-robertson-suspended-duck-dynasty-a-e-freedom-of-speech-12-2013

http://jennyslater.tumblr.com/post/70482591387/how-does-it-work-the-first-amendment

One thing to bear in mind about Robertson's comments is that if you read the actual interview with Drew Magary, at no time did Magary ever ask Robertson about his views on homosexuality. Robertson voluntarily gave his opinion on that without it being specifically asked for it. Robertson wasn't ambushed, or trapped, or set up by anyone (those are all words I've seen used to describe the incident over the past few days).

Additionally, not only does the First Amendment not apply to Robertson's situation, there's no guarantee that he should be given a platform to express his opinions even it did apply to what he said.

 

freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything you like. Obviousily it is bad and would be struck down if allowed to voted for in the modern era. Lets keep it real. Do you really want some douch bag saying bad things about you????

 

I think people need to really think about the concept of "freedom". Like the word "love" it's so overused it's become meaningless. Not to mention it's so often used by people who don't care at all about freedom for all.

I look at it this way. If someone were to drop you in the middle of antartica, alone, you'd have all the freedom you want. You'd be able to do anything you want. Shout racial epithets at the top of your lungs.

But then, without other people, you're going to get cold, hungry and lonesome.

Realistically, as a human, you're never going to have perfect freedom, including freedom of speech. Yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and unless there's a fire, you're going to get arrested.

People who believe in perfect freedom just don't get it. Whether it's freedom of speech, the second amendment or whatever, 'taint happening. It's unrealistic.

Best bet is to aim for maximum freedom in the midst of a egalitaran society. Meaning you don't impose on others or try to replace secular egalitarianism with privilege instead.

Freedom isn't freedom unless it's freedom for all. If it's not freedom for all, it's just privilege. Unfortunately some people (most people?) don't get that.