Why do so many people on this forum misunderstand what 'freedom of speech' means?

[GabeZhul]

!

A bit like "feminism", which sounds like something that only benefits females. But it's actually supposed to mean "equality between genders".

"If it's supposed to mean equality between genders, why isn't it called humanism, hurr durr"

Because humanism is, and I quote, "a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence over established doctrine or faith."

Checkmate, MRAs

The problem with that is that we already have a philosophy/movement based on equality. It is called egalitarianism.

What I think the problem of feminism is that it is exclusive, focusing on only one gender and their legal and societal issues while disregarding or even berating the issues of the other side. If feminism was truly about gender equality, its arguments would be indistinguishable from that of egalitarianism, and that is simply not the case.
In short, while feminism is egalitarian in its core values, limiting its focus on just gender issues, and then limiting it even further just for females makes it guilty of creating the same gender-separation it tries to eradicate.

But I digress, as this is not the actual topic of this thread...

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Also, someone saying something you don't like, such as "I'm going to fuck your girlfriend/boyfriend," resulting in you starting to swing at them, is not what I'd call a valid "consequence" of expression.

It's still assault/battery on your part and you'll be subjected to a, justifiable, legal response. >.>

That is unless you actually read the section on "Fighting Words" in your own link. Goading someone into an assault CAN actually be considered a mitigating circumstance when considering charges against the person who threw down. So it CAN be justifiable if there's sufficient evidence the assaulter was pushed.

I'm aware of the "fighting words" section.

Via Law.com's legal dictionary,

"mitigating circumstances

n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty upon conviction. Example: a young man shoots his father after years of being beaten, belittled, sworn at and treated without love. "Heat of passion" or "diminished capacity" are forms of such mitigating circumstances."

You've still committed the crime I mentioned in the circumstance I mentioned and, frankly, the example I gave, in my opinion, was not sufficient for mitigating circumstances to come in to play. The legal response is still entirely justifiable.

It's ultimately for a court to decide, but eh.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Oh and a postscript: has anyone heard of 'contextual meaning'? It means that if a word is used by a tonne of people to mean one thing, regardless of if it's the correct or incorrect way of using it, that's kinda what it means. For example 'literally' being used as an intensifier, or 'feminism' being used as a bunch of females attacking males. That's not what it means, but so many people use it that way that it's gained that meaning. For a great example look at swear words. 'Fuck' literally means 'sex' so 'fuck you' means 'sex you'. However so many people use it in other ways that it means other things too.
So to link it back to this, even though freedom of speech technically doesn't mean what they want it to, since so many people use it that way it's gained that meaning too.

 

[babinro]

But seriously, is it too much to ask, for people to look up what a term actually means before using it?

Yes.

Language is complex and typically has a lot of history associated with it. I'm sure I've used dozens of expressions or quotes without truly understanding their meaning yet simply trying to get a point across.

I agree with your pet peeve though as I share it. I'm very active on the Blizzard forums and we get this 'argument' all the time when someone decides to promote other games and gets their thread taken down for it. They inevitably claim they have the right of free speech to promote other products on the Blizzard website and some people agree while others laugh at them.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Just you wait a fucking second.

I came into this thread expecting someone to tell me how they think many other people are misunderstanding a term.

As in using it with a meaning intended that is not its actual meaning.

But what I got was someone telling me how they think many other people are expecting something that they understand perfectly well to apply when it doesn't.

Misleading thread title reported lol gg.

Just kidding. My actual thoughts are that this actually happens very little, and that freedom of speech would be a nice thing for the Escapist to uphold, but that yes, they don't have to. Sometimes, however, when something is said that isn't firmly against a stated rule, I can understand the usage of the term 'freedom of speech' to mean the speech that is implicitly allowed by not being against the rules.

 

[jklinders]

It's definitely not just here.

Any time someone gets a knuckle rap for crap they say there is a pretty good chance that they will whine about it.

As already mentioned, Freedom of Speech covers specifically censorship of individuals by government bodies. Even then there are limits. I can criticize me government for it's policies or because i simply disagree with them, but I cannot threaten them with violence if I do not get my way without some expectation of reprisal. All rights have this little contingency written into them that the exercise of your rights do not interfere with the rights of others (right to life for example). It kinda makes sense.

But nowhere are private enterprises (such as The Escapist) or private homes required to be that loose. In those cases the owner has sway in what is and isn't permitted within reasonable context.

It's actually pretty rare to hear of an actual case of freedom of speech violation that was actually instigated by a government body. It happens but not as often as this is invoked by the willfully ignorant.

Captcha Water gate

just like captcha to make this even more political.

 

[ZorroFonzarelli]

IceForce:

I wouldn't be too hard on people on this forum at least. From what I gather, there is a decent international presence here and Freedom of Speech doesn't mean the same thing everywhere.

Here in the US, it is clearly defined in the Constitution. Though many other nations have similar protections, I'm not certain exactly how they work.

Having said that, IMHO there is no reason for a US citizen to not understand what Freedom of Speech entails within the US. Lack of education as to the basics of Civics has caused a great deal of harm in our nation, and what you're irritated at is a small symptom of it.

 

[blackrave]

In other words- people are stupid
Those aren't exactly new news
Free speech can cause trouble of private forums.
And it works both ways.
If you post some peace proposing posts in some neonazi forum, they can ban you as well.
It is their right (even when you personally don't agree with it)

A bit like "feminism", which sounds like something that only benefits females. But it's actually supposed to mean "equality between genders".

Must
Use
Snark
But
Can't
New
Year
Resolution
Prohibits
It
But
Must
But
Can't
AAARGHH!

As far as actions of feminists go their intentional goal was to uplift female rights
And when equality was achieved feminists already had inertia and simply did whatever they could to get as much rights for females as possible (equality? what's that?)
Of course feminists claim that all they care about is gender equality (even when discussing and often defending male genetic modification, forced castrations and similar misandric crap), who wouldn't claim it?
But that is why instead of words one should evaluate actions and people in charge.
And things does not look promising for feminists.

As for humanism, that is nothing to do with gender equality.
Whoever decided that receives F- from me (at least in field of Sociology)

Equality?
Did no one ever have heard term "Egalitarianism"?
That is ideology about equality.
Not Feminism or Humanism, but Egalitarianism.
Seriously people, that term can't be THAT obscure.

 

[JimB]

The answer to this question is far too complex. Some of it is lack of education; some of it is willful self-delusion; some of it is that supposed authorities like the people on Fox "News" willfully perpetuate this incorrect myth whenever it suits their purposes. There are a lot of reasons.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Equality?
Did no one ever have heard term "Egalitarianism"?
That is ideology about equality.

Equality for whom, or on what grounds, though? The term is too vague.

Now, feminism as a term is also very vague, but it at least specifies things to being about gender.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Granted, I know piss-all about Freedom of Speech because it's something Americans bang on about and I don't even know if it's IN the Australian Constitution (if it is, Aussies really don't make a big deal about it), but now that I can further take the piss out of people that use it as a shitty line of defense when people disagree with them. Sweet!

The Australian Constitution is just about how the states work with each other, it's completely different from the US one.

 

[IceForce]

Did some one seriously say something to the effect of, "This is America, not Russia...?"

Are they aware this is an international forum?

Someone did say that, yes.

I assume they meant that this website is based in the US, and that somehow meant they could say whatever they liked here.

Oh and a postscript: has anyone heard of 'contextual meaning'? It means that if a word is used by a tonne of people to mean one thing, regardless of if it's the correct or incorrect way of using it, that's kinda what it means.

There's an obvious problem with this line of thinking though.

Even if we are to deliberately use the term incorrectly, the forum rules here prohibit certain things.
The rules prevent me from insulting anyone in this thread, for instance.

So if people complain that the mods here are removing their rights to freedom of speech, what they're actually complaining about is rights being removed, even though they never had those rights to begin with.

To put it another way, if someone says "The mods are infringing on my freedom of speech rights", what they actually mean is that the forum rules are preventing them from posting certain things.

So, remove the buzzwords (and buzz-phrases) from their complaint, and you end up with "The rules here prevent me from saying what I want to say, and I don't like it".

 

[EeveeElectro]

The ones who harp on about freedom of speech are usually the first to get bent out of shape when someone says something they don't like or disagree with.
It's seems to be a much bigger thing in the USA than here in the UK. Over here it doesn't extend to bullying, cruelty to others or victimisation yet from my point of view, I see a lot of Americans who think they can say pretty much anything without repercussions, probably just as many Brits but they'r much more defensive about their rights. I will admit I'm pretty ignorant about American life, however.
In light of the recent events of people getting arrested or fined over tweets, I think there is quite a big disparity between countries regarding rights and that comes across quite obviously when talking to them.

 

[Funyahns]

Part of the problem may be that even politicians use the term wrong. Hell during the Duck Dynasty thing that Jindal guy from Louisiana said that his freedom of speech had been taken away.

 

[Coppernerves]

Before I look up "freedom of speech", I'll jot down what it appears to usually mean:

Freedom to say whatever won't be complained about more than it is defended.

What wikipedia says it means:
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them"

Must resist urge to move those apostrophes...

This forum is a place type as and read the typings of those who are following the CoC, therefore, if you stop following the CoC, you no longer definitely have the interest of recipients, and the right ceases to apply.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Granted, I know piss-all about Freedom of Speech because it's something Americans bang on about and I don't even know if it's IN the Australian Constitution (if it is, Aussies really don't make a big deal about it), but now that I can further take the piss out of people that use it as a shitty line of defense when people disagree with them. Sweet!

The Australian Constitution is just about how the states work with each other, it's completely different from the US one.

Huh, fair enough. I have absolutely zero legal knowledge - it wasn't until a couple years ago that I even knew we had a Constitution, so it's taking me awhile to catch up on what's actually in it.

Eh, the Australian Constitution isn't particularly relevant to most Australians most of the time. Back when it was developed, it was about getting the States to play nice with each other, but nowdays they do anyway.

Almost everyone who talks about the Australian Constitution, though, imagines that it is, or should be, similar to the US one.

 

[Parasondox]

I recently saw this before and MovieBob explained it perfectly with full meaning.


From 4:11 onwards he explains it. You can say what you want BUT doesn't give it the right to be heard or to be agreed with or for anyone to accept and to not be challenged by what you said. It's a shame people don't realise that and keep saying "What about my freedom of speech" as a misused defense.

Here in the UK, a lady was loud mouth and racist on the bus (or tube I think) to anyone black, brown, foreign or just spoke a different language to her and the comments section in the Mail Online (the Daily Mail) mostly defended this women saying "I can't believed she got arrested, it's her freedom of speech". No it's damn well not. It's similar to those who say "PC has gone mad when I can't call someone a paki or ****** or ***** anymore". NOOOOOOOO, seriously some people would rather be difficult sometimes rather than looking up one simple term that explains everything.