Is free speech an absolute right.

Mutant z

Is free speech an absolute right, should anyone be allowed say what they want without being censored, or do you believe it should have limits, my personal view on the matter is that as long you're not openly advocating violence against anyone then it should be a right, and i believe that political correctness has gone way too far in society, what do you think.

Peregrinus

By definition, you can only have one absolute right, a right which trumps all others. And I struggle to think of an argument as to why, if we are to have one absolute right, it should be freedom of speech.

I'd also point out that we're very, very far from recognising free speech as an absolute right. We allow it to be qualified by all kinds of considerations, many of which have nothing to do with violence. My right to free speech doesn't extend to me telling pejorative lies about you, for example, because you have a right to your good name and reputation. My right to free speech doesn't allow me to sell state secrets for profit. It doesn't allow me, as a lawyer or a doctor or a banker, to tell the world about my client's private affairs. It doesn't allow me to make false claims in advertising. It doesn't allow me to advertise, say, cigarettes in certain media. It doesn't allow me to sing your song in a public performance without paying you a royalty. It doesn't allow me to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. It doesn't allow me to put up a public notice indicating that you will sell sexual favours at a modest rate, and giving your phone number. And we could go on and on.

The point is, if you recognise more than one right, then rights are inevitably going to come into conflict, and the more rights you recognise - the more our discourse about public policy is conducted in the language of rights - the more this will happen. The absolutist language of high-flown principal that we tend to use in relation to rights isn't an accurate reflection of the highly conditional, highly nuanced reality.

Or, in other words, my "right to free speech" is in no sense a guarantee that I can always speak freely without repercussions or restraints. At most, it's an acknowledgement of the fact that repercussions or restraints on my speech need some definite justification. But it gives us little help as to what that justification might be.

silverharp

You would need to define "free speech" , its clearly a non starter to have it so open as to imply that a person can make any "noise" 27/7 anywhere, nobody would seriously want that right. the "fire" in the cinema one is an example of where the property rights of the cinema owner take precedence. Or you see it on sites like here where someone might claim that their right of free speech to express an opinion has ben taken away, when in reality Boards.ie is a private space so there is no presumption or right of free speech

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

. . . Or you see it on sites like here where someone might claim that their right of free speech to express an opinion has ben taken away, when in reality Boards.ie is a private space so there is no presumption or right of free speech

Well, that raises a separate issue, which is whether we see rights as something the state has to respect, or as something we all have to respect. For example, if a landlord refuses to let a flat to a person because that person is Jewish, have the person's rights been infringed? If you take the view that rights are just limitations on what the state can do then, no, they haven't. But if you take a more expansive view then, yes, they have.

But if you take that latter view, then a ban, etc, on a forum like Boards does look like an attack on free speech, doesn't it?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, that raises a separate issue, which is whether we see rights as something the state has to respect, or as something we all have to respect. For example, if a landlord refuses to let a flat to a person because that person is Jewish, have the person's rights been infringed? If you take the view that rights are just limitations on what the state can do then, no, they haven't. But if you take a more expansive view then, yes, they have.

But if you take that latter view, then a ban, etc, on a forum like Boards does look like an attack on free speech, doesn't it?

clearly the gov. has interjected itself and does what it wants as we have no consistent basis for laws in this area and people switch "movie" when it suits. Personally I'd prefer if property rights were left in the hands of property owners ortherwise the State can simply force property owners to do their bidding to the point that the population rebel if ever.

So with Boards, "most" people would use the logic that it is a privately owned space and they could kick you out pretty much like a coffee shop owner could

Mutant z

I think when it comes to issues like immigration free speech is stifled, we should be able to speak about it without being condemned as racist, bigots, the fact is mass immigration has had many negative consequences to the western world, and we should be allowed to say so openly, but the MSM refuse to even discuss this problem and act like it doesnt exist, people have a right to oppose mass immigration and the destruction of their cultural identity, likewise on issues like SSM, while i have no issues with SSM, i did think the attitudes of the yes voters to those in the no camp was very distasteful to say the least, to the physical assaults, the name calling, the unfriending on FB, because they dared to express a different opinion, surely in a democracy we should all be allowed an opinion even those we don't agree with, if you don't like what someone says, then you have every right to disagree with them and tell them why you disagree with them, but you have no right to shut them up and stop them from speaking, like i said as long as you're not advocating to beat someone up, we should all be allowed to hold an opinion no matter how offensive you think it is, in a free democracy.

Pat Mustard

Mutant z wrote: »

like i said as long as you're not advocating to beat someone up, we should all be allowed to hold an opinion no matter how offensive you think it is, in a free democracy.

You mention the right to free speech in isolation but the fact is that there are other rights which must be balanced against freedom of speech. As a result, it cannot be an absolute right.

The Constitution of the USA provides for freedom of speech, to include freedom of speech in relation to political matters. However, freedom of speech is not absolute right and there are exclusions in relation to matters such as threats, obscenity, child pornography, civil wrongs (such as defamation) and in relation to national security.

In Ireland, there is a Constitutional right to freedom of expression, per Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution:

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

There are restrictions on freedom of expression in Ireland, which include those outlined above.

Furthermore, since the 1990s, you will see the introduction of various pieces of legislation which slowly eroded the right to free speech even further. For example, the Public Order Act makes it an offence to engage in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place with intention/recklessness as to whether a breach of the peace is occasioned.

The Public Order Act has resulted in a multitude of convictions, many of which relate to simple insults.

Even if we look back at Brehon Law, which regulated this country before the arrival of Normans or British, there was a right to one's good name. Of itself, this is a restriction on an assertion of an absolute right to freedom of speech/expression.

There is no absolute right to free speech in this country and I would argue that it is likely that such an absolute right has never existed here.

HivemindXX

Mutant z wrote: »

I think when it comes to issues like immigration free speech is stifled, we should be able to speak about it without being condemned as racist, bigots

So a person should be able to say any poorly thought out, poorly formatted, regurgitated drivel but other people shouldn't be able to call them a bigoted fool?

Your right to free speech is in no way infringed. The fact that a lot of people find your thesis juvenile in the extreme and say so is not censorship. The people attempting to claim they are being silenced are just upset because their ideology is a minority one. Citing the right to free speech as a reason to silence those who speak against them is painfully ironic.

Mutant z

HivemindXX wrote: »

So a person should be able to say any poorly thought out, poorly formatted, regurgitated drivel but other people shouldn't be able to call them a bigoted fool?

Your right to free speech is in no way infringed. The fact that a lot of people find your thesis juvenile in the extreme and say so is not censorship. The people attempting to claim they are being silenced are just upset because their ideology is a minority one. Citing the right to free speech as a reason to silence those who speak against them is painfully ironic.

I wasn't suggesting that people should be silenced for speaking out against anyone quite the opposite in fact, you obviously have missed the point altogether, i believe in a voice for everyone, for every opinion, and when you mention bigotry what do you mean by that, are those whos views you don't agree with automatically a bigot, see this is what I'm talking about, btw the liberal left are far more authotarian and aggressive to those with differing opinions to them, just look at the violence they have inflicted on peaceful protesters because they dont agree with their views, that was clearly an attack on free speech, look how quickly the word racist is used to those that question, reckless open border policies, anti SSM voters who were condemned as homophobes, just for voting against it, and the intolerance shown on social media to their views many of which were genuine concerns, and certainly not homophobic, as the left like to potray, when you have people in the UK losing their job, or even being arrested for what they say on social media, because it may be deemed offensive, this is a huge issue in the western world and it's only going to get worse if the sjws in society like Aodhan O Riordon get their way, we need to do everything we can to stop this from happening and to cherish freedom of speech, as the famous saying goes, i may not agree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it, lets all live by that in a democratic free world, where the right to free speech is paramount.

Manach

Within the private the issue does not arise, as entities like Boards can the decide what is allowed under their remit. However while not an absolute, as was pointed out cannot exist, in the public sphere and especially that of Politics it must come close to being foundational.
Academics like Prof. Lawrence Lessig have pointed out that free speech within the market place of ideas allows a free open debate about ideas to take place and hence promote the good and recognise the bad concepts. In the US this has been key in such cases as Sullivan vs New York times upon which press freedom rests from more that a half century. By restricting such freedoms we can have situations where to assert the truth of events, such as the Armenian Genocide, is actually punishable in countries such as Turkey.
Thus imposing limits, unless under the most restrictive of circumstance, either online or offline is counter-productive to societal good.

Peregrinus

Mutant z wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that people should be silenced for speaking out against anyone quite the opposite in fact, you obviously have missed the point altogether, i believe in a voice for everyone, for every opinion, and when you mention bigotry what do you mean by that, are those whos views you don't agree with automatically a bigot, see this is what I'm talking about, btw the liberal left are far more authotarian and aggressive to those with differing opinions to them, just look at the violence they have inflicted on peaceful protesters because they dont agree with their views, that was clearly an attack on free speech, look how quickly the word racist is used to those that question, reckless open border policies, anti SSM voters who were condemned as homophobes, just for voting against it, and the intolerance shown on social media to their views many of which were genuine concerns, and certainly not homophobic, as the left like to potray, when you have people in the UK losing their job, or even being arrested for what they say on social media, because it may be deemed offensive, this is a huge issue in the western world and it's only going to get worse if the sjws in society like Aodhan O Riordon get their way, we need to do everything we can to stop this from happening and to cherish freedom of speech, as the famous saying goes, i may not agree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it, lets all live by that in a democratic free world, where the right to free speech is paramount.

If you think what I say is racist, Mutantz, then surely if you have a right of free speech you are entitled to say so? It seems to me that criticizing someone else's view is not an attack on their free speech; it's an exercise of your own right free speech. If you really believe that free speech is an absolute right, then surely you must think you are entitled to say anything you like, however unpleasant, however vitriolic, however false and defamatory, about me and my opinions, and I can likewise say what I like about you and your opinions?

In short, I don't think you can coherently say "free speech is an absolute right and you mustn't call me racist or bigoted". If you believe that free speech is an absolute right then you must "defend to the death", to borrow your own phrase, my right to call you racist or bigoted.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

clearly the gov. has interjected itself and does what it wants as we have no consistent basis for laws in this area and people switch "movie" when it suits. Personally I'd prefer if property rights were left in the hands of property owners ortherwise the State can simply force property owners to do their bidding to the point that the population rebel if ever.

So with Boards, "most" people would use the logic that it is a privately owned space and they could kick you out pretty much like a coffee shop owner could

Well, would you be comfortable with the law allowing a coffee shop owner to insist that black customers sit at tables at the back, or a hotelier to decline to let rooms to Jews, or an employer to refuse jobs to Catholics? Is that something should the state should or may prevent, or would anti-discrimination legislation be an impermissible infringement on the property rights of business owners?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, would you be comfortable with the law allowing a coffee shop owner to insist that black customers sit at tables at the back, or a hotelier to decline to let rooms to Jews, or an employer to refuse jobs to Catholics? Is that something should the state should or may prevent, or would anti-discrimination legislation be an impermissible infringement on the property rights of business owners?

I was using the coffee shop as an example where there is no presumption of free speech. you would have to ask the owners permission if you wanted to hold a political meeting or some such

Generally it would be bad for business and most businesses wouldnt bar sections of their potential customers , in a very free market with low levels of general regulation there would be sufficient competition that bigoted owners would be either niche or would be driven out of business.
The more reasonable current examples are the "gay cake" where I have sympathy for the owners, the state shouldn't be putting a gun to their heads , its oppressive and costly. Or the cases where a Christian B&B owner was prosecuted for not allowing a gay couple to stay. Again depending on circumstances its a bit of an overreach by the state.

Peregrinus

What I'm picking up on, silverharp, is your introduction of property rights into the discussion.

The OP asks whether free speech is an absolute right, and you respond (in relation to the "fire in a theatre" example) by suggesting that calling out "fire" is an infringement of the theatre owner's rights. I thought that was interesting; it seems to me that the people first and foremost disadvantaged by this are the other users of the theatre, who may be injured in the crush and who in any case are deprived of the opportunity to see the performance. The theatre owner's property rights aren't directly infringed; it's not as if he has to hand back ticket prices every time there's a fire alarm.

And then you add that property rights should be left in the hands of property owners, which again I thought was a bit odd. Property rights are a communal, societal creation; you're only the owner of particular property if your community decides that you own it, and your rights as an owner are the rights your community thinks owners should have.

So it seems to me that you have quite focus on property rights, and are inclined to analyse things in terms of property rights when, to my mind, that's not always the appropriate analysis to bring to bear.

And I ask myself whether you are moving towards a position in which it is not free speech rights, but property rights, that are absolute, that trump all competing claims of rights? Hence my question about whether we can ban racial segregation, religious discrimination, etc. A "property rights absolutist" would say no, we shouldn't do that. However distasteful racism, antisemitism, etc may be, they do not justify infringing on the rights of private property.

I note your point that market mechanisms and customer pressure should drive discrimination firms out of business. With respect, we know this doesn't happen. Customer pressure and the free markets had a hundred years to sort out segregation in the hospitality industry in the US, and it didn't happen. It took the Civil Rights Act.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

What I'm picking up on, silverharp, is your introduction of property rights into the discussion.

The OP asks whether free speech is an absolute right, and you respond (in relation to the "fire in a theatre" example) by suggesting that calling out "fire" is an infringement of the theatre owner's rights. I thought that was interesting; it seems to me that the people first and foremost disadvantaged by this are the other users of the theatre, who may be injured in the crush and who in any case are deprived of the opportunity to see the performance. The theatre owner's property rights aren't directly infringed; it's not as if he has to hand back ticket prices every time there's a fire alarm.

just a different way of describing it, the business owner has an incentive to have happy customers , so its unlikely they will allow disruptive customers to stay. its not a legal concern, might be an insurance concern but basically the property owner is best placed to set their terms and conditions so by definition there is no freedom of speech , an individual cant start lecturing the audience or exercise any other forms of speech that the audience would deem to be an intrusion on their cinema experience.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And then you add that property rights should be left in the hands of property owners, which again I thought was a bit odd. Property rights are a communal, societal creation; you're only the owner of particular property if your community decides that you own it, and your rights as an owner are the rights your community thinks owners should have.

I would disagree with this outlook, the extreme version of this is communism. I guess everything is a societal creation but I don't see any difference between a house and a shop, most people would intrinsically feel that you need to be invited into your house and its "my house my rules" and that you deal with people based on voluntary association. why the major shift because the house starts to sell sweets or bread?
And just in case you ask it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with your property, its possible to have underlying zoning agreements between groups of property owners in an area. So to connect with above the zoning agreement for the development might say that you cant convert a house into shop which is fine, you signed up when and agreed when you bought the property

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I ask myself whether you are moving towards a position in which it is not free speech rights, but property rights, that are absolute, that trump all competing claims of rights? Hence my question about whether we can ban racial segregation, religious discrimination, etc. A "property rights absolutist" would say no, we shouldn't do that. However distasteful racism, antisemitism, etc may be, they do not justify infringing on the rights of private property

I note your point that market mechanisms and customer pressure should drive discrimination firms out of business. With respect, we know this doesn't happen. Customer pressure and the free markets had a hundred years to sort out segregation in the hospitality industry in the US, and it didn't happen. It took the Civil Rights Act.

A society based on strong sense of property rights would best protect free speech. Disrespect property rights and it allows for blasphemy laws for example which is the antithesis of free speech and overrides the property rights of whatever organisations would be affected.

As for the Civil Rights Act, you have to unpick a lot of history there where there were Jim Crow laws which in their own way impacted on property rights by mandating segregation.

Peregrinus

I really struggle, silverharp, to analyse blasphemy laws in terms of infringement of property rights, and your tossing this into the mix tends to confirm the impression I have that you are basically trying to understand everything in terms of property rights.

I don’t see this as a viable way of looking at things. In a state of nature, nobody owns anything, and it’s hard to argue that any particular person has an inherent or natural right to the ownership of anything (except, perhaps, something that they have created themselves out of nothing).

Suppose you own blackacre. What does this mean? It might mean, for example, that you have an exclusive right to plant crops on blackacre - nobody else can plant or harvest crops there, except with your permission. But does it also mean that nobody else can take things that grow wild on blackacre? That nobody can shoot wild game that happens to be flying over blackacre? That nobody can even enter blackacre without your permission? Does it mean that you own any minerals in the subsoil beneath blackacre? That you own wild animals that are on blackacre? That you can prevent aircraft from flying over blackacre? Does it mean that you can control what happens to blackacre after your death, by the provisions you make in your will?

Whether it means any or all of these things depend on the laws, customs and conventions of your society. In some parts of the world, your ownership of blackacre does mean that you can, e.g. , leave it to whoever you like in your will. In other parts of the world it does not mean that. In still other parts, it may mean that at one time but not at another time. And the same is true for every other incident of ownership.

“Ownership”, in short, is a bundle of rights, privileges and duties, the existence and contents of which is derived from and entirely dependent on common consent. “I own blackacre” means not what you decide it means, but what your community decides that it means, and they can decide that it means literally anything. And communities will make different decisions about these matters in different places and at different times.

And there’s no other basis for property rights than community consent. You can criticise a community’s rules about property on the grounds that they are inefficient, or unequal, or don’t reward merit, or on lots of other grounds, but you can’t meaningfully criticise them on the grounds that they infringe property rights, because they are property rights. The sole basis for property rights is community recognition. If nobody in your community thinks that your ownership of blackacre means that you can, e.g., stop me walking across blackacre to access some other place, then your ownership of blackacre gives you no right to do that.

Which means that property rights are always contingent and flexible and malleable and so forth, and they make a really louse foundation on which to base other rights like life, liberty, free speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of movement, bodily integrity, etc, etc. So I think your attempt to analyse free speech, freedom of conscience etc in terms of property rights is not just hard to follow, but fundamentally unsound.

silverharp

a 2 year old kid has it right "that's mine" . do you own your toothbrush? if the state said you couldn't, would that not be a time to start protesting, or do you think its ok for thieves to come into your house and take your stuff? have you only as a society decided that this shouldn't be allowed implying that the opposite is an option or is owning your stuff pretty much a natural right that even the most extreme communist knows they couldn't overturn and try to sell the idea that people can take whatever they want because there is no private property? leaving aside primitive societies where there is no trade or property, where people have traded one thing for another they understand that they have acquired property and its theirs to use or dispose of as they wish.
As for Blackacre , if it was in China for instance you cant own land but have to lease it because the government does ie the communist gov took it by force so it is a reality but its based on a process that involved the use of force against individuals who had their property rights overridden.
The community can agree to anything though, was it valid that the Jews had their property taken by the German state in the 30's ? not do you agree with what happened but do you agree that it was valid as it appears to be the principle you are laying out? As far as I am concerned it was wrong because it was their property, the state had no right to take their property that they owned.