Why do people only support free speech for things they agree on?

[-]

FitConsideration7037@reddit

Freedom speech is not freedom of consequences

[-]

daneview@reddit

Freedom of speech is freedom of consequences from the government.

Free speech means if you say something horrible, everyone might hate you, but you won't get arrested for it

[-]

I would say the concept goes a little further than that. I think it keeps getting (incorrectly) framed about the US constitution's second amendment. Free speech/free expression as a concept is older and broader than that, and includes elements of things like accepting/expecting disagreement.

[-]

daneview@reddit

I mean, there are definitely the eejits out there who "cant even say wot i fink these days" which is more that people will disassociate from them.

But I think when we discuss freedom of speech it has to be at a legal/government level as thats the only bit that can technically be co trolled countrywide

[-]

PracticeNo8733@reddit

But I think when we discuss freedom of speech it has to be at a legal/government level

I disagree. I mean, first off if you're talking about only considering government/legal action against speech then you ignore, for example, people committing crimes to prevent or deter people from expressing themselves, eg preventing controversial speakers speaking at events by force. I think that's well with the scope of the discussion of free speech/expression.

If you say that that's still included in government/legal because you're including legal protections for free speech against non-government actors then I still think that leaves many contexts where free speech is an important consideration. For example, consideration of free speech in order for academic institutions to function as places to test/develop/challenge ideas.

And there are broader social contexts too. For example, should banks, supermarkets, etc be able to refuse people service because they say legal but controversial things? Keeping in mind that we already disallow them from refusing service based on all sorts of other characteristics.

[-]

PracticeNo8733@reddit

If it is as simple as that then free speech (I prefer "free expression") is meaningless. For example, if a consequence of an action is that you get locked up in prison then you're not really "free" to do it and we wouldn't say you were if it was any other action.

[-]

SociallyFuntionalGuy@reddit

Actually, it is. Just because you dont agree with something didn't mean you can punish the person for saying it. You're in the wrong.

[-]

snowmanseeker@reddit

This is exactly it. No matter my political leanings, I will accept the opposition's right to free speech - unless that speech is calling for, or inciting, harm or violence. You can say whatever you want, but you deal with (particularly legal) consequences of your words.

[-]

AnonymousBanana7@reddit

Because very few people in the UK actually hold liberal values or genuinely support free speech.

Everyone agrees the government should be silencing offensive and distasteful speech. They just disagree on what's offensive and what's acceptable.

The left has largely shunned free speech because up to now we've mostly been criminalising stuff that they want criminalised. We were only targeting the baddies.

But now the pendulum of public opinion is starting to swing the other way, especially on certain geopolitical issues, and the people that have been cheering on the government cracking down on nasty words are now upset about it.

The whole point of freedom of expression was to avoid this situation. Plenty of people have warned that this would happen - I've been saying it for ages, and I'm quite strongly left wing. But we've been shut down and called racists and fascists. Oh well 🤷

[-]

trout_mask_replica@reddit

Because most people don't actually believe in free speech - it's just something they pull out as an argument of convenience when it suits them. What they actually believe is that they should be able to say whatever they like without consequence. Meanwhile, other people should be prevented from saying things they disagree with and punished if they persist. See also most people's take on human rights which are obviously only for people they like.

[-]

PracticeNo8733@reddit

First off, I prefer "free expression" as it avoids some confusion. The act of physically speaking can constitute all sorts of crimes - eg you could be fraudulently deceiving someone, or ordering a murder. The real issue is the freedom to express your ideas, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, etc.

Why is call for violence against some people/groups argued to be ok

First off, there are some cases where such violence is sanctioned. For example if your country is at war with another then you're unlikely to get in trouble for saying "kill the enemy!".

The rest of it (where we're talking about potential involvement in a violent crime) gets into a messy area with a couple of major factors.

What counts as an actual "call to violence" and exactly where do we draw the line between that and hyperbole?

Is enforcement fair and even? It might be wrong to say something online but is that being enforced against everyone or are public figures or particular "sides" targeted? Are the sentences/punishments issued both proportionate and fair?

But yes, in general it does seem that a lot of people have been abandoning it as a value when others have been getting attention while saying things they don't like.

[-]

811545b2-4ff7-4041@reddit

Because.. free speech is a complicated topic. Do you let anyone say anything, anywhere, without consequences? Do you limit stuff so it won't cause others to be violent? How do you decide what those limits are? How do you know what's going to make people do violent stuff if provoked? How do you decide what the consequences are?

[-]

TheTackleZone@reddit

I think we need to split the terminology:

- Freedom of expression : this is where you can say what you think, and what your opinions are.

- Speech acts : this is where your voice is an action, such as to incite violence.

I think the difference is really clear and obvious, and an update to the definitions will help to share that. Namely that the first one is what we mean by free speech, not the second.

[-]

811545b2-4ff7-4041@reddit

I find it ironic this thread has been removed

[-]

Evening-Tour@reddit

Their position is that it's "Free speech for me, none for thee"

They deserve their free speech you do not.

[-]

AskUK-ModTeam@reddit

AskUK is a "catch-all" subreddit for questions about the UK life and culture, but this does not mean we accept any and all questions or answers. We are liable to remove posts or comments which are best discussed in more specialised subreddits, or are simply not desired here because of the problems they bring.

We explicitly do not allow questions or answers on or including:

politics (r/askukpolitics, r/unitedkingdom, r/ukpolitics)
legal advice (r/LegalAdviceUK)
financial advice (r/UKPersonalFinance)
technology (r/techsupport, r/technology)
relationships (r/relationships, r/relationship_advice)
DIY (r/diyuk)
university/education (r/sixthform, r/uniuk)
visas/citizenship (r/ukvisa)
medical advice (including mental health) (r/mentalhealthuk)
ranting/venting (r/britishproblems)
surveys (r/samplesize)
advertising/solicitation (including the mention of brands which could be perceived as marketing)
repetitive/seen-often (just search the sub)
"does anybody else" type vent posts (as yes, someone does, be more specific or use r/britishproblems).
questions based on protected characteristics, such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, etc. subject to moderator discretion.

...and we may remove others if we believe they are liable to introduce problems for the subreddit.

In some circumstances, a more appropriate subreddit may be available. Check the sidebar for other subreddits to have these discussions. Also see r/unitedkingdom's extensive list of subreddits; https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits

[-]

Buzzinggg@reddit

Cause people are idiots

[-]

ByteSizedGenius@reddit

I'm pro pretty much any free speech that isn't advocating violence. I might think what someone says is appalling and disguising but I back their right to say it, it doesn't mean I won't judge them for it though.

[-]

yorkspirate@reddit

This is my stance aswell. Should someone say appalling things ? No. Should people be able to say appalling things ? Yes.

It shows them to be who they are and all that but I believe that if we start censoring and choosing what's ok to be said a slippery slope that can't be stopped has begun

[-]

LittleSadRufus@reddit

I think crucially Mr X's right to express a view doesn't mean anyone else needs to broadcast, report or even factor in that view. Nor is it immune from ridicule.

[-]

VolcanicBear@reddit

Humans appear to be a very contradictory and hypocritical species.

We certainly do appear that way, fellow human being.

[-]

psychicspanner@reddit

Because people think free speech means “you can say what you want”, whereas grown ups understand it means “you can say what you want……. but are liable to be challenged on what you said….”

[-]

PatrickTheSosij@reddit

Because we are human

[-]

NoEmployer7767@reddit

Personally unless something is extremely immoral (think promoting sex crimes or child abuse) I think free speech being prevented is more harmful than not. People can have differences of opinions, as humans we should naturally always be questioning our own points of view and free speech opens the way to having discussions about tough topics

[-]

When repling to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.