DeadNotSleeping said:
mantlepiecek said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
mantlepiecek said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
Every freedom requires limitations and restrictions, otherwise it could and would inevitably be used to violate the individual rights of another. Limitations on speech as they are works quite fine. |
How can freedom of speech "violate" another person's rights? There is no way for that to happen. Unless you think someone has a right to hearing selective speech, which they don't.
|
Harassment, threats, violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, breach of contract, slander, in some cases perjury, abetting, the list goes on. With unrestricted free speech it would be very difficult to enforce academic fraud policies, protect the public from blatantly false advertising, that sort of thing. Being able to say whatever the Hell you want whenever you want has serious legal ramifications that play heavily against your favor and invariably violate your rights. Rather than leave the entire populace open to such abuses, restrictions on speech actually protect our rights. Every freedom and right has limitations and restrictions for this very reason.
Too much sense?
|
First of all, most of the examples you listed don't work against freedom of speech. By freedom of speech I meant the ability to voice yourself. When you lie about something serious, you aren't doing something wrong by lying, but you are doing something wrong by misleading. There is a difference here. You are still allowed to lie. Which is why I asked what I did in the OP.
Threats are once again, illegal because of your intention, not because of what you are saying.
Harassment through speech? How can one measure that?
|
If speech became unrestricted the things I have listed (which we both agree to be detrimental to society) would become legally acceptable. Threats couldn't be illegal if speech was unrestricted. Charging or punishing someone people because they uttered threats would be unlawfully censoring them. They are simply expressing themselves, after all. As for threats being illegal due to intention, that interpretation would vary between differing jurisdictions. Intent to commit a crime is not enough to charge or convict in some places, and if the threat itself is perfectly fine because of the whole free speech thing, intent must be proven which is hard to do in the absence of action.
And then harassment. Comments of a sexual nature in the workforce again would become acceptable because people would simply be voicing themselves. People in positions of authority in business or military would be empowered to sexually exploit those beneath them and this is already an occurrence despite harassment laws and policies already in place.
Speech is free pretty much as it is. The limitations and restrictions adequately protect the public from possible abuses. Please explain to me how you would provide equal protection for the public against such abuses while making speech completely free and 100% unlimited.
|
Well, I believe that in public its possible. Workforce (and contracts) have their own rules and regulations, and people have to follow them if they want to keep their jobs.
But you made a good point. You were thinking about it in a different way then I did.
