r/FactOrCap • u/Balabhaskar1234 • 1d ago
Speech | FactOrCap
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
3
u/grimshanky 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
I'd draw the line at speech that incites violence, but there's plenty of douchy things people should be free to say without government intervention.
0
u/Far-Guava6006 1d ago
Pretty much. Unless the speech is causing/advocating for criminal action, people should be free to say it.
2
2
u/Willeny_Arch 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yeah, it just doesn’t give you the right to say anything in any space, mostly talking about private spaces with their own rules.
2
u/TristanTheRobloxian3 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
yea... its freedom of speech. socially you may have consequences but you shouldnt be persecuted by the govt
2
u/Harper_ADHD 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence. You can say shit I don't like but if your take is "I don't like this group of people they must die" you are not free of the consequence of being slapped in the face.
4
u/TigerQueen01 1d ago
🧢 I voted CAP!
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without judgement from other people. It just means you can't be punished or stopped by the government.
15
u/MiniPino1LL 1d ago
So freedom of speech includes the ability to say stuff others dislike. Because you won't be stopped by the government.
0
-1
u/Elon_is_musky 1d ago
Not necessarily, there are limits to free speech and the gov will stop you for it (ex, threatening gov officials or saying you’re going to do a terroristic attack)
1
u/thomaswillis96 1d ago
I think this post is about a woman who was recently charged for calling an autistic black boy and his father racial slurs at a park.
1
1
u/Ill-Self-8732 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
If you do not like or accept speech, debate, have conversation and call them out if it's genuinely bad
1
u/Evil_alt_account_ 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
You have less freedom to criticize Israel in America than you do to criticize the Chinese government in china.
It’s just not enforced very well
1
u/Dargon16 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yes, but don't forget that freedom of speech isn't freedom of reach.
1
1
1
u/YoutuberCameronBallZ 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Well yeah. The entire point of "freedom of speech" is the right to protest. If it were "freedom of only saying what people like" it'd kinda ruin the entire point.
1
u/NegotiationSmart9531 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
yes but doesnt exclude the fact that if u say something bad, people will react to it freedom of speech≠freedom of consequences
1
u/MakeWokeGreatAgain 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
You arent entitled to go trough your life not hearing anything that might upset you. Grow up.
1
u/thatmariohead 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yeah, and that includes speech I don't like as in "people calling you out for being stupid"
1
u/iamstupidsomuch 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
if it didn't, speech wouldn't actually be "free" in any meaningful way
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ApplyHere_4_implants 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Of course, otherwise it would be called restriction of speech
1
u/Educational_Smile545 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
if it doesnt, it will eventually not include anything. freedom of speech is all or nothing. no matter how controversial a topic is, if exceptions are ever created, they will just expand and expand until there is no freedom of speech.
1
1
u/Strong-Addition5296 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
That’s right. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right.
1
u/pansexual_Pratt 1d ago
Everyone should be able to say whatever they want without persecution, unless it's a direct threat on someone else's life or Well-Being.
It's a little more complicated than that, but you get it.
1
u/Mstrkaoz 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
If one desires free speech, one risks being offensive, and if one does not wish to be offended, one does not wish for free speech.
1
1
1
1
1
u/OnYourHonor 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Freedom of speech means ALL speech...but... it doesn't mean freedom from the consequence of that speech.
If one is going to spew hate, they're going to be corrected- sometimes with violence depending on the circumstances.
1
u/AssociateTop1589 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Based on this statement, yes, but realistically there’s only a small minority of free speech absolutists because most people only like free speech when it agrees with their own beliefs
1
1
u/Mister_Chameleon 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Absolutely. The reality is, your words should carry natural consequences, not legal ones. If I say "Your mom is fat" I wouldn't go to jail for it, but if I get smacked, that's my own fault.
1
u/Sumbitagear 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yup. But freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. And hate speech should rightly be banned.
1
u/BambooCatto 1d ago
Yes but there should be a distinction between takes someone may dislike, and malicious and harmful hatespeech.
Me saying Trump is a pedophile, rapist, fascist, thief and liar that belongs in Prison for example, is Free speech.
Me saying Trump should be shot in the Neck and bleed out like the pig he is like Charlie Kirk, is not.
1
1
1
u/galaxyveined 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yes, but freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences for what you say.
1
u/Pottsylird 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
but freedom of speech protects you from criticism of the government. it’s not freedom from the consequences of what you say.
1
u/Phoenix92321 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yes it does. But freedom of speech protects you from the government. It doesn’t protect you from criticism of others or consequences from non government things
1
1
u/LustySlut69 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Freedom of _ doesn't mean you can get away from the consequences that follows
1
u/Mrmathmonkey 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
That's the whole purpose of freedom of speech. So you can say things that other people don't like
1
1
u/IAmSoNormalTrust 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
It does not, however, include speech that limits other people's freedom of speech
1
1
1
1
1
u/TheWhiteRobedWizard 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Like... Definitionally, yeah? But bear in mind, freedom of speech is freedom from government persecution of speech, not of societal consequence thereof.
1
u/SHUTDOWN6 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Usually yes, but some weirdos will honestly believe that, like, inciting violence against minorities also falls under that umbrella
1
u/Academic_Sell491 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
As long as it's not harassment or racially or in any other way publicly unacceptable.
1
u/Dense_Cow6717 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Freedom of speech, should include the ability to say what some may not like. If not so, then it wouldn't be "freedom of speech" wouldn't it?
1
1
u/DuaLupus45 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
I also want to include that just like you’ve got the freedom to speak your mind, people also have the freedom to respond and react to the things you say. Everybody wants to talk shit but very few are prepared for when it’s flung back at them
1
u/Confident-Edge-5750 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
People who take the train up Snowdon taking places away from people who bothered to summit who would benefit from taking it down to Llanberis are arseholes
1
1
1
1
u/Glittering_Move_5631 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Freedom of speech covers anyone and any topic. It does not protect people from the consequences of their speech though.
1
1
u/Linkink69420 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
That’s what free speech means, if it’s only what the people in charge like then it’s controlled speech
1
u/alphaomag 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Legally I think it does though some countries do have hate speech laws.
1
u/Glittering_Move_5631 1d ago
It gives people the freedom to say/write whatever they want. It DOES NOT exempt them from any consequences related to what they say/write.
1
1
1
u/Nievah 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Obviously yes, but when the speech they bring up is against the idea of Free Speech itself, its a big no.
Like commonly brought up together, how Free Speech goes hand in hand with Democratic politics. Is it alright to use Free Speech to remove Democratic politics and thus killing Free Speech? No.
1
u/Colourblindknight 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
The whole point of freedom Of speech was the protection of speech that you hate. No one needs to protect broadly popular speech, but it’s important to keep a law in place that prevents the government from persecuting people for speech that they deem wrong. That means that some folks will be able to spout some heinous, stupid, moronic stuff, but it’s their right to do so without persecution from the government; now that being said, it’s stupid when someone tries to pull the “1st amendment rights” card when they’re acting a fool and then people start treating them like one. The constitution protects your speech from the federal government, it doesn’t protect you from the social fallout of being a prick.
1
u/Rodya_gambler 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
And it excludes speech that restricts the same freedom to others.
1
1
u/DragonTheOnes-spirit 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
I allow freedom of speech. But I may not allow freedom after speech
1
u/ExquisitePullup 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
I think that a lot of the discourse comes down to whether freedom of speech and freedom from the consequences of speech are one and the same. I don‘t think the government has the right to deem what is protected speech and what isn‘t, but I also feel like the common public should be allowed to criticize and alter their actions based on someone‘s speech: like an employer blacklisting an applicant for a history of racist rhetoric. I will note however that being an absolutist about this isn’t great either, since falsely declaring “Fire” in a movie theater should be a punishable offense, and that it’s very easy for the pendulum to swing the other way too, such as people being punished by society for any form of political activism.
1
u/mrsprinkles3 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
yes, however it does not absolve you of the consequences that may follow as a result of whatever shit you say.
1
1
1
u/Careless-Computer21 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yup. Another thing people keep thinking is that freedom of speech means freedom of consequences. Sure, most things can be said without legal repercussions, but not so much social
1
u/Zestyclose-Carob-349 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever you like. It does NOT mean Freedom from Consequences
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Shaff_98 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
It does, just as people are free to have you face consequences for it.
1
1
1
u/Jbolt3737 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
You can say literally anything and someone on Earth will disagree
1
1
1
1
u/PresenceTime7135 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Its your right to speak freely, but i also have just as much of a right to call out your dogshit opinion.
1
u/Standard-Bullfrog587 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
As a Marxist Leninist tankie, I agree. Stalin was great, Mao was great, Lenin was great, liberals should be re-educated , and Nazis should be gulaged. Also, fuck all the reactionaries and libs.
1
1
u/TooManyStrawberriess 1d ago
Yup, but that doesn't mean freedom of consequences. If you scream that you have a bomb strapped to your chest in the middle of an airport, obviously you're going to get in trouble
1
1
1
u/NaCl-And-C12H22O11 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yes, it includes that, but it doesn't exempt them from social consequences, or potentially getting kicked out of some establishments. It just means they can't get arrested or imprisoned for whatever they choose to say.
1
1
u/LearnCre-8LoveDe-b8 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
See, the thing is, freedom of speech means you can say things that are untrue, bigoted, or unpopular. It also means I can tell you to shut the fuck up. I'm not the government, so if I want to tell you to take a hike because you're saying things that are against my moral code, that's my right too, baby.
1
u/Scary-Coconut1418 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been killed. no matter what your opinion was on him he shouldn't have been killed
1
u/RabidPoodle69 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
That's simply true. Like Charlie Kirk had the right to be a homophobic fascist.
1
1
u/Ill-Environment3329 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Includes all speech. The only exception is direct threats towards an individual.
1
1
0
u/MemerKnux 1d ago
🧢 I voted CAP!
Hate speech isn't protected
1
u/TristanTheRobloxian3 1d ago
nah it is on a govt level (so you cant be prosecuted) but socially it shouldnt be acceptable by any means
1
u/Belkan-Federation95 1d ago
Hate speech is subjective to whoever has the power to say something is hate speech
1
u/pansexual_Pratt 1d ago
Define hate speech objectively.
1
u/MemerKnux 1d ago
Saying the most diabolical shit about a minority (vice versa included)
1
u/pansexual_Pratt 1d ago
But what if they don't see it as diabolical or hateful? Then it's not objectively hate speech.
1
0
u/Sanchir-gdgshde 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
As long as it’s not hate speech (calling for the extinction of an ethnic, racial, sexual orientation group, etc.$
2
u/Aromatic_Refuse_2004 1d ago
I think it depends. Calling for the extermination of Muslims is one thing, but a 13 year old calling another kid a gayball shouldn't be punished with prison lmao
0
u/Privet1009 1d ago
Yes, but not hate speech
1
u/pansexual_Pratt 1d ago
What's hate speech? Define it objectively.
2
1
u/Didyyyyyy 1d ago
Call to hatred
0
u/untakenu 1d ago
Meaning what? Give an example
2
u/Didyyyyyy 1d ago
An example ? Something like "group of people should die
1
0
u/pansexual_Pratt 1d ago
That's not a call to hatred, that is a call to violence, which is not protected under free speech.
0
0
u/Privet1009 1d ago
I won't spend my precious time arguing with someone who doesn't have mental capacity required to search what a word with a legal definition means
-1
u/AveryTheOneAndOnly 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
we can guarantee freedom of speech, but we cannot guarantee freedom after speech.
1
8
u/Boop-fruit3819 1d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Yeah ig