The right to free speech

[Phoenix]

Discussion continued from here: http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=7890

I understand. But suppressing free speech does not make this ideology go away. The whole purpose of free speech is to protect speech you do not like.

I am against the arm of the State being used to crush speech it does not like.

Surely there should be some bounds to 'free speech'...?

For example, why should hate speech or those inciting violence be unrestrained or unpunished...?

Or speech that defames individuals or commercial entities...?

[Philosopher]

Surely there should be some bounds to 'free speech'...?

For example, why should hate speech or those inciting violence be unrestrained or unpunished...?

Or speech that defames individuals or commercial entities...?

No, there should be no bound to free speech. The problem I have with government censorship and prosecution of free speech is that it become a political weapon. In time, governments prosecute individuals for exercising free speech that is outside the mainstream.

Free speech, when limited to speech, should be a legally protected right.

Groups like Golden Dawn should be intellectually debated, not censored.

[Soldier of Macedon]

No, there should be no bound to free speech. The problem I have with government censorship and prosecution of free speech is that it become a political weapon. In time, governments prosecute individuals for exercising free speech that is outside the mainstream.

Free speech, when limited to speech, should be a legally protected right.

Groups like Golden Dawn should be intellectually debated, not censored.

With the above are you also suggesting that (verbal) racial vilification should be a legally protected right, at for example a workplace, a hospital or a school?

[Volokin]

No, there should be no bound to free speech. The problem I have with government censorship and prosecution of free speech is that it become a political weapon. In time, governments prosecute individuals for exercising free speech that is outside the mainstream.

Free speech, when limited to speech, should be a legally protected right.

Groups like Golden Dawn should be intellectually debated, not censored.

My thoughts exactly.

Now we as Macedonians will not agree with their beliefs, but we, in Australia, live in a "free" country, and they should be allowed to come and do as they so wish.

I'm a big believer in free speech, and I will not change my stance because of some Greek Neo-Nazi's wanting to spread propaganda down here.

[Philosopher]

With the above are you also suggesting that (verbal) racial vilification should be a legally protected right, at for example a workplace, a hospital or a school?

You are confounding two very different things. First, it is necessary to distinguish between criminal and civil penalties.

Second, private businesses, whether a workplace, a hospital, or a school, have their own code of conduct and sets of regulatory standards. What this means is that the owner of a private property has a right to discriminate against who ever he wishes to, whether it is for race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, or speech reasons. The owner of the private property can not have someone prosecuted for violating these regulatory standards, unless he commits a criminal offense, such as trespassing.

For example:

This forum, I would imagine, is a private forum operated by private individuals. You have every right to censor posts and threads. It is a private forum. Government laws protecting free speech do not apply to this forum.

Governments should not ban free speech in a public arena, regardless of its message, so long as the group is invited to speak and has the legal access to a public venue. If, however, the speech spills over to action, and this action violates other laws, such as assault, for example, then the State has the right to intervene and punish only those who committed the assault, and not the speech.

Positive legislation is written to protect individuals from criminal prosecution. Civil fines, however, are very different.

[Soldier of Macedon]

You are confounding two very different things.

I'm not 'confounding' anything. I am asking questions because I want you to be more specific.

......private businesses, whether a workplace, a hospital, or a school, have their own code of conduct and sets of regulatory standards.

What about at a public hospital or government school? Should free speech be protected in such environments?

What this means is that the owner of a private property has a right to discriminate against who ever he wishes to, whether it is for race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, or speech reasons.

Are you suggesting that is the case or should be the case?

Governments should not ban free speech in a public arena, regardless of its message, so long as the group is invited to speak and has the legal access to a public venue. If, however, the speech spills over to action, and this action violates other laws, such as assault, for example, then the State has the right to intervene and punish only those who committed the assault, and not the speech.

How about if a particular group or individual is a part of the government, should they also be afforded this unrestrained right to free speech?

[Philosopher]

What about at a public hospital or government school? Should free speech be protected in such environments?

It should, but it is often not.

Are you suggesting that is the case or should be the case?

This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I am arguing that it should, but the courts have been inconsistent on their interpretations of the law.

How about if a particular group or individual is a part of the government, should they also be afforded this unrestrained right to free speech?

If he or she is expressing a personal opinion, then yes.

[Soldier of Macedon]

It should, but it is often not.

So a teacher or doctor should be free to racially abuse a student or patient?

This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Can you provide a specific example of a jurisdiction which allows private business owners to racially abuse their employees without legal consequences?

If he or she is expressing a personal opinion, then yes.

Why should it be limited to personal opinion? Shouldn't the very same government expected to guarantee freedom of speech also be permitted to exercise it?

[Gocka]

Philosopher, what you are saying is a bit troubling.

Freedom of speech should not be allowed to incite hatred, and should not include calls to violent action. The Golden Dawn, continually, makes racist statements, calls for violence, and then commits violence. There is no room in society for those kind of organizations.

Where have you ever heard that a private business owner is allowed to racially or in any way abuse his employees with out it being illegal? This is total nonsense.

I think you need to rethink your position, and first associate your point of view to living conditions in Aegean and Pirin Macedonia. Think about how what your saying, might affect fellow Macedonians, then let me know what you conclude.

Some people hide their violent and racist agenda behind freedom of speech. The golden dawn is those kind of people.

[Philosopher]

So a teacher or doctor should be free to racially abuse a student or patient?

You have a habit of confounding and conflating different issues. You must distinguish between criminal and civil penalties. You must also distinguish between public and private properties.

Public hospitals and public schools also have codes of conduct and sets of regulatory standards some of which are set forth in the local hospital or school. But unlike private property, anti-discrimination laws generally apply only to public properties. It is against state law for an employee of a public hospital or public school to racially abuse a patient or student. This violates anti-discrimination laws.

An employee of a hospital and school has the legal right to exercise free speech, but they also have a legal responsibility to obey anti-discrimination laws. Now in a truly free society, if these employees wish to express their own personal views, no matter how discriminatory, in venues outside of work, as private citizens, they should and do have the legal right to do so. But doing so may have civil consequences, including loss of work and lawsuits.

Can you provide a specific example of a jurisdiction which allows private business owners to racially abuse their employees without legal consequences?

You are reading words not found in my comments. I am speaking of discrimination as a whole, and not specifically racial abuse. Why would a private property owner or business owner hire racial groups the owner does not like only to racially abuse the person? This makes no sense.

What I am arguing is that a private club or business has the right to hire whoever they want based on creed, sexual orientation, gender, race, et al. The courts have upheld that if a club is strictly private (like a golf club, for example), it is exempt from anti-discrimination laws. This is known as freedom of association.

More recently, the courts have ruled that it is illegal for a private business to discriminate against homosexuals on religious grounds. Personally, I think this is a bad ruling, but that is the law.

Why should it be limited to personal opinion? Shouldn't the very same government excepted to guarantee freedom of speech also be permitted to exercise it?

Because government employees may have different opinions than official government policy. You must distinguish between official government policy from the opinions of government employees and politicians. If I were a politician, and I was invited to speak to an amnesty crowd, I can express my personal opinion that the government should grant amnesty and that amnesty is good. I cannot speak on behalf of everyone in government or the government itself, for it may not be the official policy of the government to grant amnesty.

Golden Dawn members are a minority and they have right to express their minority opinion both inside and outside the country to whoever wishes to listen. They cannot state that the official position of the Greek government is to … or … unless that is the case. They can merely state that “If I was in power” or if “our party was in power”, we would do the following.

[Philosopher]

Philosopher, what you are saying is a bit troubling.

Freedom of speech should not be allowed to incite hatred, and should not include calls to violent action. The Golden Dawn, continually, makes racist statements, calls for violence, and then commits violence. There is no room in society for those kind of organizations.

Their speech should be protected, but the violence they may commit should not.

Where have you ever heard that a private business owner is allowed to racially or in any way abuse his employees with out it being illegal? This is total nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense, but I never wrote that. You are using SoM's misapplied interpreation and imputing it to me.

I think you need to rethink your position, and first associate your point of view to living conditions in Aegean and Pirin Macedonia. Think about how what your saying, might affect fellow Macedonians, then let me know what you conclude.

Some people hide their violent and racist agenda behind freedom of speech. The golden dawn is those kind of people.

I do not think you understand the gravity of this. If the government can ban speech it does not like, what makes you think your speech will be protected tomorrow? Or my speech?

Throughout history, when ideologues have come into power, they have used their power to criminalize speech they dislike or feel threatened by. Why not take the position that all speech should be a legally protected right, and that only violent actions should be punished?

I may disagree with a lot of things people say, but I find it unconscionable that a government would stop people peacefully associating to promote their opinions, regardless what those opinions are.

[George S.]

Phillosopher who would want to debate the gd ,do you seriously think they would listen given their nazi views on things.

[Philosopher]

Phillosopher who would want to debate the gd ,do you seriously think they would listen given their nazi views on things.

Well, the way I look at this is that human progress is all about communication. When you think about it, what idea has been eradicated in human history via torture, imprisonment, persecution, or prosecution?

People die, but ideas not so much.

Using the arm of the law to silence people does not suppress ideas. Ideas just go underground. It is far preferable for information to flow freely and let everyone decide on their own what to believe and what not to.

This is the hallmark of a free society.

[Soldier of Macedon]

It is against state law for an employee of a public hospital or public school to racially abuse a patient or student.

Do you disagree with this law, given your earlier indication that free speech should be protected in such environments?

Why would a private property owner or business owner hire racial groups the owner does not like only to racially abuse the person?

Cheap labour is one reason. Another is that certain groups and individuals are ignorant of the rights they possess as members of the workforce, and can therefore be more easily manipulated by their employers.

What I am arguing is that a private club or business has the right to hire whoever they want based on creed, sexual orientation, gender, race, et al.

OK, but do they have a legal right to fire based on the same reasons? Do they have a legal right to tell an interviewee that they are not eligible for the job because they're African, Asian or whatever? If not, do you believe they should have such rights?

Because government employees may have different opinions than official government policy.

Earlier you suggested that free speech should be unbounded. I wanted to know if you think a government as a system itself (through its designated officials) should have the right to free speech, given your expectation that it secures free speech for individual citizens. Should Tony Abbott or Barack Obama have the right to free speech in an official capacity as PM or President, if free speech is supported by their respective political parties?

[George S.]

freedom of speech should be protected if a country is a democracy.Whils't this may be the case in practice there are many occassions where its not.People sadly do not get their freedom to speak.Those that do get it abuse it to their ends.Freedom of speech where does it start or end.It could lead to legal ramifications of defamation.A lot of situatioins exhibit themselves if free speech was allowed ie by showing racial abuse etc.