Limit on internet 'free speech'

[khaine21x3 789]

Do you think there should be one? should people be allowed to promote vigilantism or lynchings and posting the personal information of people that they want taken out?

 

It seems like a common practice now for people to post messages promoting violence and the address of the people they hate on sites like youtube and social media.More interestingly the internet hate machine even goes after people who does things as small as not tipping a waitress.

[Shiki 5,855]

No. If anyone cares about what others say, especially over the internet, then I believe they are the ones in fault.

 

Limiting free speech either on or offline is like a kid cleaning up their room by stuffing everything under their bed. Putting things out of view -- such as, I dunno, racist comments, for example -- does nothing but makes others even more afraid when they finally find such statements and ideas. Rather than attempt to stop those from saying what they believe, we should teach others how to handle these kinds of scenarios. 

 

If you are ever offended by things over the internet, I don't believe the problem is the one saying "offensive" things, but rather the one who gets "offended."

[khaine21x3 789]

@,

 

I'm talking about promoting murder of certain people on social sites along with pasting the full name, address and phone number of the people they want taken out.I think that it promotes a possible shooting scenario if some mentally unstable guy with a gun saw the address of the person he considers evil.

[Shiki 5,855]

@,

 

I'm talking about promoting murder of certain people on social sites along with pasting the full name, address and phone number of the people they want taken out.I think that it promotes a possible shooting scenario if some mentally unstable guy with a gun saw the address of the person he considers evil.

This is not an issue of free speech, but an issue of invasion of privacy and an issue of harassment.

 

Free speech would be to say "I think everyone who is not a homosexual red head deserves death." Posting personal information, at least, I would think, would be a privacy issue that could have something done about it.

[Prismatic 49]

The way I look at it freedom of speech only applies to a public location (and in addition the context is towards a public authority).  if it is a private website and/or to a private individual there is not freedom of speech.  Hasn't been that way for years.

[ProjectRKA 2,848]

I personally don't think there should be a limit on free speech. Not here, 'nor in the real world. I'd like to be able to speak my mind, thank you very much.

[Nim 28]

Being able to say/posy one's opinion is one of the greatest acts of self-expression we have. Putting a limit on free speech strips us of our ability to speak our mind, not to mention that people hate being oppressed. Limiting our self-expression only causes more violence than what's already there.

[A Glimpse of Everything 129]

It depends on what a person may mean by 'free speech'. If you mean as in a way that we are allowed to swear and talk of vulgar things; then I must disagree. I'm not saying the swearing is a horrible thing. But if it's used in a unnecessary way, such as using it in a harassing way, then it isn't.

 

I read an interesting post on some other site debating the fact of swear, and if it is necessary or not. 

 

I, personally, think it's necessary in some cases. For instance; it's unnecessary to use a swear word in every sentence. 

 

But, imagine that your closest friend is on a hospital bed and is expected to have less than a week left in their life. In that case it would be necessary to whisper "fuck." But, even there, it would be unnecessary to have a rage spike and start flipping things over and screaming cuss words the loudest possible volume your lungs can take.

[hawkflame 3,310]

You're confusing two issues.  Free speech and privacy are different things.  Right to privacy should never be violated, and you can maintain privacy while still using your first amendment rights. 

 

As they say, your right to free speech ends directly at my nose.  Free speech is free insofar as it doesn't violate the rights of others- whether it be shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or inciting violence against another human being.

 

You know, I wonder how many people here are actually *reading the original post* rather than just going by the title of the thread. 

Edited February 5, 2013 by hawkflame

[CyberFlash 41]

I hold two totally conflicting views on this:

• First I believe the law has a duty to act to protect people (particularly vulnerable people!) who are put in immediate danger by specific threats or suggestions.
• However, also I believe the Internet is not part of any country, but is it's own soverign entity.  Therefore, I believe that no country holds the right to impose such restrictions on free speech on the web.

   

I hold both the above statements to be true.

 

When I was younger, I read the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace by John Perry Barlow (recommended read!) which lays out this view wonderfully.

 

It has motivated me to engage in hacktivism knowing that what I do is for the good of all Internet citizens. That any attempt by governments to meddle with Internet freedom could be considered an act of war and under international law we legally have a right to resist. They have no mandate to govern us and we did not vote for their control of the web. Any powers they have here are illegitimate.

 

The biggest lie is that we need governing at all! Why would we need anymore law that simply the moderators of the site itself? If some free speech on a site raises problems, it should be brought to the owner or administrators attention who may then deal with it. They are the gentle shepherds looking after the flock.

 

I consider each website it's own domain and country. Owners should be free to impose whatever rules they wish. I'm always uncomfortable with the idea of any single person - or group of people having ultimate control over all websites. That's not how the web works

 

So I guess in a nutshell, that is the overriding argument in my mind

Edited February 5, 2013 by CyberFlash

[Betez 1,734]

Absolutely not. The Internet is for free speech, no matter how awful it is. Yeah, there are some hate websites, but imagine if we werent't allowed to talk about this? Free speech on the Internet shouldn't be a double standard.

[Heart's Desire 181]

Threatening someone's life is illegal. It has nothing to do with free speech. It's like NAMBLA and the Klan. They both have a right to exist and say what they want but if they act on it they will be arrested, etc.

The majority of internet forums would not allow such a post to remain. I assume even Facebook and the like would remove such posts if they were reported. Consider the picture the man posted of his 2 year old daughter bound with duct tape. When Facebook found out it was removed and I believe he was prosecuted.

 

If there are sites that are promoting such a thing I would think they would be illegal.

 

hawkflame said it best, and I have always loved that quote, Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

For better or worse, the free exchange of ideas is here to stay. The sooner people figure can figure that shit out, the sooner they can do something useful with it.

 

There is an interesting parallel in our distant past. One anthropology theory is that modern humans were only able to edge out the (stronger, more established) Neandertal because our capacity for language exceeded theirs. The comparison isn't perfect, but I think it stands to reason that the ones who can take powerful (though potentially dangerous) things like unlimited expression and do something productive with it will drive the more cloistered ones into exile or extinction.

[Yourmomsponies 444]

I site rule -4 in the official rules of the Internet.

 

-4. The internet has no real rules, no exceptions.

11. All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored.

12. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

13. Anything you say can be turned into something else

 

and

 

Also.

Rule 34.2  There are ponies of it, no exceptions.

Rule 2010 

 There is a ponified version of it. No exceptions.

 

So basically, Ponies rule all and the internet cannot be censored.

[khaine21x3 789]

For better or worse, the free exchange of ideas is here to stay. The sooner people figure can figure that shit out, the sooner they can do something useful with it.

 

There is an interesting parallel in our distant past. One anthropology theory is that modern humans were only able to edge out the (stronger, more established) Neandertal because our capacity for language exceeded theirs. The comparison isn't perfect, but I think it stands to reason that the ones who can take powerful (though potentially dangerous) things like unlimited expression and do something productive with it will drive the more cloistered ones into exile or extinction.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that, it seems that even the EU and US have begun cracking down on free speech and then there's that internet kill switch.

 

The stronger idea will indeed conquer the weaker but it would be such an irony if radical religious ideas or neo nazism were the ones to triumph and it seems that they will if governments didn't use DMCA takedowns for youtube and forcibly take down sites with ideas that goes against the status quo.

 

The EU is gonna break apart without censorship and heavy handed government tactics.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

I wouldn't be too sure about that, it seems that even the EU and US have begun cracking down on free speech.

We'll see. For now, the Western governments' scattered attempts at internet censorship are more blips than trends. Admittedly, you and I come from very different environments, and our perceptions of these trends are going to be different.

[silvadel 1,393]

It is very simple -- treat it the same way as if you were speaking it.  Hence you have all the same rules as slander and "do not yell fire when there isn't one" but no censorship of ideas etc.

[khaine21x3 789]

@,

 

US censorship has been less noticeable as most of them are terrorist sites and jihadmist material that seeks to convert american muslims into terrorists but EU censorship is heavy handed and very visible ranging from minor trolling to censorship of right wing ideas and nationalism.

 

"Internet troll jailed after mocking deaths of teenagers"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers

[PoniesPlease 365]

Free Speech is the Internet's greatest strength, and it's greatest weakness.

 

One can change the world using the Internet, and one can destroy the person who wants to change the world.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

"Internet troll jailed after mocking deaths of teenagers"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers

This case is a good example of what is and is not acceptable free speech. How do you feel these kinds of harassment cases should be handled?

[Winged Anomaly 47]

I don't believe there should be anything of the sort.  The internet is sort of the last great bastion of free speech, where nothing you say will bring down the mighty hammer of god.  But in terms of posting someone else's personal information, that should not be legal.  That's not a matter of free speech, it's a matter of compromising someone's personal security.

[Soundgarden 2,758]

Free speech should be allowed, but too many people use it to promote racism and hatred. To few people follow moral rules which is a dam shame, because if they did, nobody would be discussing whether free speech should be limited.

[khaine21x3 789]

This case is a good example of what is and is not acceptable free speech. How do you feel these kinds of harassment cases should be handled?

 

I think it was handled well but most people here seem to think that there should be no censorship no matter how offensive they are and even when they target specific persons or group.Groups like westboro and KKK did a lot worse in real life and with internet propaganda but that's totally fine in the US so the line varies per country and individual opinion of where or not there should be a line or where it should be widely varies.

 

other fun cases:

 

Azhar Ahmed was sentenced on Tuesday to 240 hours’ community service, because he said nasty things, also on Facebook, about soldiers who had been killed in Afghanistan. Specifically, he said soldiers should “die and go to hell”.

   

John Kerlen was sentenced to 80 hours’ unpaid work in May for referring to a local official as a c**t on Twitter.

  

Joshua Cryer was given a two-week community order in March for racially abusing the soccer player Stan Collymore over Twitter.

   

Liam Stacey was sentenced in March to 56 days in jail for making racist tweets when soccer player Fabrice Muamba collapsed on the field.

 

Edited February 5, 2013 by khaine21x3

[Fridge 382]

Do you think there should be one? should people be allowed to promote vigilantism or lynchings and posting the personal information of people that they want taken out?

 

It seems like a common practice now for people to post messages promoting violence and the address of the people they hate on sites like youtube and social media.More interestingly the internet hate machine even goes after people who does things as small as not tipping a waitress.

Yeah my email address, photo and deviantart page are pasted on a site called redwatch (it's a pro nazi site) as a target because I'm an Anti-facist. Seriously just look up redwatch then find the link for the Shropshire and I'm there.... The least they could do was put up a nice photo lol. But some poor people get their work address and numbers etc put up because they dare have a different opinion.

 

But here's the thing... I do believe the net should be have free speech at the same time. Not unlimited free speech but something like that is enjoyed in the US or is taken as a given in the UK (because believe it or not we don't have free speech here, you can go to jail for insulting the Queen, just no one enforces the law). People should not be able to post someone else's private details without permission.

[Harmonic Revelations 8,835]

Do you think there should be one? should people be allowed to promote vigilantism or lynchings and posting the personal information of people that they want taken out?

 

It seems like a common practice now for people to post messages promoting violence and the address of the people they hate on sites like youtube and social media.More interestingly the internet hate machine even goes after people who does things as small as not tipping a waitress.

No, you can't limit free speech, at all. Censorship is the first step to a totaliatarian police state. Those who disagree say this is an opinion with no basis, however, all you need to do is look at history. The internet isn't meant to make people feel good, it's meant to spread information.