Monthly Archives: July 2017

Basically, when it comes to the freedom of speech you must know that it is the political right for communicating ones own option and express the own ideas. Or we can say that the right to speak and express personal emotions is called the freedom of speech. Though sometimes it is used synonymously but it always includes the act of receiving, seeking and imparting the information or ideas regardless of source used. In fact, the right to the freedom of speech is not absolute in any nation and the rights are mostly subject to the limitations as with the slander, sedition, libel and slander.

No doubt the freedom of speech is a much important thing in decision-making at all the levels and it is a significant factor in the deliberation of a representative range of views. Basically the Right to speech is more important factor for the individual liberty. There is no right more important than the right to think what you damn well please and then talk about it. It is not important only for an individual but it is also more important for the different communities living in the different parts of the world. it is the best way to get the new and fresh ideas for that are much important for the improvement of nations and their economies as well as it also affects directly on the political power, development of nations and their characters as well. So no one can deny the importance of the Right to speech freely.

While you are searching for the most libertarian nations on the earth, then you will find great difficulty because there is not any specific and particular way for ranking the nations based on their right to express their opinions and voice. To figure out the list of nations that are considered the freest nations around the globe, you must sacrifice in some of the areas famous for the freedom. Following is a list of top five countries that are considered the freest countries around the globe.

It is one of the most beautiful and richest nations around the globe and for this reason it is a place where anyone would love to go, to live and everyone has the desire to spend his moments in it. It has number of attractions that are making it a beautiful nation on the earth. It is not only famous for its beauty but it is also famous for the liberty of speech. It is one of the most socially free nations in the world. It is providing more freedom to its citizens as compared to many other countries of the world.

United States is also one of the most popular, rich, beautiful and strongest countries in the world. Having a great history of freedom loving, the communication within the country has been pretty astonishing. United States of America may be the most controversial nation in the list, but within the few years, its ranking has dropped more quickly. But still it is on the fourth number in the list.

Switzerland is considered a peaceful nation in the world. Do you know what the reason behind this beautiful reality is? Basically it is only because it has about 200 years without war and this is a greatest record in the world. It is also one of the most beautiful and richest countries in the world. Its inhabitants have the right to raise their voice and every individual has the liberty to speak and raise his own voice.

Canada is one of the famous countries for the best education in the world. It is taking a great part in the most libertarian countries in the world. Here every person has the liberty to speech and express and has the right to work and perform his own ideas. And as the result Canada is given the second rank in the list of countries that are famous for the most speech freedom.

Ireland is considered one of the most socially free countries in the world. Here the inhabitants enjoy all type of freedoms that are making it one of the best and free countries in the world. People have the right to speak, right to share their ideas and to raise their voice. Ireland is also one of the richest countries in the world. All the people are enjoying the freedom of speech and it is the freest country in terms of liberty of expression.

Also See :

Previous post

Next post

Originally posted here:
Top Countries with most Freedom of Speech - WhichCountry

A favorite retort from those who believe in policing the speech of others is:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

This has become a thought terminating cliche for many which prevents deeper consideration of the ethics and morality involved.

Unless there is some way to make certain actions physically impossible, the way to prevent people from performing these actions is to inflict consequences on those who do so. We cannot make murder impossible so, instead, we punish those who murder. The idea is that the threat of punishment will make people restrict their own behavior.

It is exactly the same with speech. We cannot actually prevent forbidden words and ideas from being uttered. Instead, speech is restricted by inflicting consequences on those who utter them. The intention is to make people self-censor, to restrict their own speech in order to avoid punishment.

This is how governments police speech. Yes, some have enough control over the media to prevent things being published but, even then, they are still not able to prevent individuals from saying those things.

When we talk about restrictions on speech we are talking about applying consequences to speech. If saying certain words or expressing certain ideas is punished then speech is not free, restrictions have been applied. Therefore, freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences.

Those who recite the idea that "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" really mean "freedom of speech only means freedom from consequences inflicted by the government."

It's really just another way to say "it's only censorship if the government does it." This thinking is usually supported by pointing to the US constitution and explaining that the first amendment only says that the government cannot restrict speech. However, this is only a specific protection of freedom of speech, not a definition of the concept.

The US constitution defines only the rules the US government must operate under so naturally its protection of freedom of speech is limited to attacks from the US government.

If you justify restricting the speech of others with arguments based on the limitations of the US constitution then you don't actually believe in freedom of speech. You just believe in the constitution.

Freedom of speech is more than an amendment. It's a principle, that those with power over us should not use that power to restrict what we can say and, similarly, if we have power over others, our power should not be used to restrict what they can say.

The government is not the only thing with power over us. If you can inflict consequences, you have power. If you can pressure someone's employer into firing them, you have power over them.

Does this mean that we cannot respond to speech in ways which might negatively affect the speaker? Of course not. If someone says something you find distasteful then you have every right to judge them for it and express and act on that judgement. What crosses the line is action deliberately intended to punish the speaker and make people afraid of repeating the speech.

Obviously this only relates to speech in public. It's perfectly reasonable to police speech in your home or business, although even then the consequences should be limited in scope to your home or business. If someone uses racist language in your house, there's no issue with you telling them that they are no longer welcome. What is not reasonable is calling their employer to tell them what they said.

Yes there are grey areas. Is it reasonable to tell mutual friends about their behavior and have them ostracized from the group? Maybe. However, much of what internet activists are doing is well outside of these grey areas.

Am I saying that there should be laws preventing people from punishing speech? Am I saying that there need to be punishments for those who punish the speech of others? No. This is not about legality. It is about ethnics and morality. It is about what should not be done, not what must not be done.

Those who point out that these internet activists are merely exercising their own freedom of speech are right but that does not mean what they are doing is not despicable. Someone who uses racial epithets is exercising their freedom of speech but their behavior is not morally defensible.

Basically:

See the original post here:
Freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences ...

Imagine a life where you had no freedom to speak what was on your mind, and imagine what it would be like to live in a world like this. Noam Chomsky, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a big supporter with the idea of free speech. He is known across the globe for his activism and outspoken criticism. He is also said to be the most often cited living author and one of the most respected and influential intellectuals in the world. (MinnesotaState) Chomsky is very respected in the area of free speech, which is why so many people criticize him as well, because he does have some extreme forms of free speech which he thinks how it should be. To show the view Chomsky has, there is one very extreme example of what he thinks should be allowed in society today.

In the year 1979, a French professor of Literature named Robert Faurisson published two letters in Le Monde. These letters had statements about how gas chambers used by the Nazis in World War 2 to get rid of people of the Jewish faith did not exist. After publishing these letters, there was a huge outrage almost worldwide. Faurisson was convicted for Defamation and also fined and given a prison sentence. A man by the name of Serge Thion, a French Libertarian socialist and Holocaust denier ask Noam Chomsky to sign a petition along with hundreds of other people who signed it to support Faurissons right to freedom of speech. After Chomsky had signed the petition, people were already attacking him. Jewish-French historian, Pierre Vidal-Naquet saw this petition to be a legitimization of Faurissons denial of the Holocaust and also as a misrepresentation of his intentions. Because Chomsky signed the petition, he also wrote an essay called Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression which was very critical of the French intellectual response. This also stated that Chomsky did not support Faurissons ideas but strictly his right to freedom to speech. This essay however was used by Faurisson in his book which intended to defend his rather obscure views. Vidal-Naquet attacked Chomsky in his essay and thinks Chomsky could have signed other petitions defending the right to freedom of speech without presenting Faurisson as a legitimate historian. Chomsky has stated that he believes in the absolute freedom of speech and also states I see no anti-Semitic implications in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even the denial of the Holocaust. (CriticismsWiki)

A question that can be raised from all this is, can Chomskys understanding of free speech be allowed in todays society? The answer is yes it can be allowed, and should be allowed. Everyday people are discriminated by other people because of what they think and what their opinions are on different topics. If someone doesnt agree with something you say or think, that shouldnt mean you should not have the right to express yourself. Although sometimes it could be dangerous depending on the topic your arguing or talking about, because there are some people in the society today that think there is only one side to things. Faurisson was a Holocaust denier, and even though many people disagreed with him and his ideas, they supported his right to speak what was on his mind and get his opinions across. The fact that he was considered anti-Semitic and given a fine and sentence in prison is ridiculous. He is not hurting anyone when he is doing his own research and trying to look for alternative sources and opinions. By not knowing all opinions and narrowing your knowledge on all topics, you cant really make a reasonable decision on what you think is right without knowing both sides. After 9/11 there were many opinions expressed that didnt agree with each other, and the ones that the Americans didnt like were somehow in some shape or form put aside, ignored, or penalized for having a different thought than the majority of the population. It might take some adjusting and such to get used to the absolute freedom of speech, but without it were shielding ourselves from other ideas that could prove to be good and interesting as well. If two people were to get into a fight at a school, and no witnesss were around to see it, the principle would listen to both sides most likely before making a decision and what he or she believes. This can be related to the idea of free speech, and Chomskys understanding of it, in which if you dont hear both sides of things, how can you make an honest decision on whats right and wrong, or what should be or shouldnt be.

The world would be a much different place if people werent allowed to express their thoughts and were only given stuff to think about, instead of actually looking into things and understanding the whole situation. Without Freedom of speech many great philosophers and other great beings would not have made a difference in the world. Martin Luther King Jr. Expressed his thoughts and made a difference to millions of people for the better, even when at the time many of thousands of people did not agree with him and were actually mad at him. Same thing with Bob Marley, he spoke his mind and how everyone should get along and be able to express themselves, even after getting shot at he still stood by what he believed. There are so many examples where individuals around the world made a difference by speaking up and questioning things even when people frowned apon it. Without this freedom, society would be very dull and probably not as harmonized as it could be. Chomskys understanding might be extreme, but with a little effort, it could be allowed in our society today and good would come from it.

Read more:
Freedom of Speech Analysis and Significance

written by: Lynne Ringle edited by: Amanda Grove updated: 8/2/2012

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects free speech, but there are exceptions that are not protected. Defamation of character, obscenity and making false statements that result in a clear and present danger are examples of speech that are not protected by law.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental American right, but limits on American freedom of speech also exist. Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has ruled on the types of speech and other forms of expression that are and are not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Even though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the rights of Americans to express themselves, there are limits on this freedom. The Constitution states that the government cannot make any law that restricts free speech or freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot censor what Americans read in newspapers or other forms of media and the government cannot arrest citizens for speaking about their ideas and opinions, even if they differ from those of the government. However, this does not mean that Americans are free to say whatever they want at any time they want to say it. There are situations where some types of speech is illegal.

Freedom of speech does not permit someone to make a false statement about another person that could damage his or her reputation. This applies to the spoken word, which is called slander, as well as libel, which is defamation in print. Making these false statements must also be done with the intent to harm another. In one of the most important libel cases in the U.S., a police commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan sued the "New York Times" for making inaccurate statements about the police department. The Supreme Court ruled that the newspaper did not commit libel because the statements were a mistake, not intentional, and that it could be more difficult to debate public issues if those who work in the public can sue anytime a false statement is made.

Americans are not free to make false statements that could cause panic or place others in danger. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1919, in the Supreme Court's ruling in Schenck versus the United States, that there are times, particularly in times of war, when the government must restrict speech to protect the safety of the country and its citizens. In this case, the court unanimously ruled that Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer did not have the right to distribute leaflets encouraging Americans to avoid the draft. It is within this ruling that Holmes wrote his often-quoted phrase about the First Amendment not protecting "a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." Creating a clear and present danger is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

In 1973 in Miller vs. California, the Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. Defining obscenity can be difficult and the court did state that obscene is not necessarily the same as indecent, which is material intended for adults, not children. The Supreme Court also noted that caution has to be used in limiting personal expression, particularly when determining what is obscene and what is not. However, the court ruled that if the average person would find the speech or expression obscene and if it cannot be considered art, it is not protected by the Constitution.

We are fortunate to live in a place where we are free to express ourselves, within limits. These limitations do not take away from the meaning of the First Amendment. The right to free speech is a fundamental American right and a big part of why Americans cherish their freedom.

What do you think of these exceptions to the rule? Do you think they should also be protected by freedom of speech? Are their other instances you believe should not be protected?

More:
The First Amendment and Limits on American Freedom of Speech

Rep. Robin Vos, a sponsor of Assembly bill 299, explaining why lberals have no right to free speech.

The first amendment guarantees that the government will not restrict the speech of its citizens (with some exceptions). Republicans in the state of Wisconsin have passed legislation that restricts the speech of those who disagree with them. Assembly Bill 299 states that if a speaker comes to a University of Wisconsin campus, and their speech is disrupted, the students involved in the disruption can be expelled.

The policy must include a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others. In addition, the policy must provide that in disciplinary cases involving expressive conduct, students are entitled to a disciplinary hearing under published procedures that include specified rights. Also, the second time that a student is found responsible for interfering with the expressive rights of others, the policy must require the student to be suspended for a minimum of one semester or expelled.

During the debates on on the legislation Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, asked the author of the bill, Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, if a geology professor, under the bill, would be able to correct a student who said the earth is only 6,000 years old. To which Rep.Kremer responded, "So, this bill stays out of the classroom. Yes, the Earth is 6,000 years old, thats a fact. But, we can discuss that outside of this room."

The Earth is not 6000 years old, it has been determined scientifically to be 4.543 billion years old. A Wisconsin Assemblyman who believes the Earth is 6000 years old has written legislation that has passed both chambers of the Wisconsin Legislature that would allow a speaker like Ken Hamm come to the University of Wisconsin and state that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and no student could stand up and say, Bullshit.

To say Rep. Kremers comments created a kerfuffle in the local news media, would be an understatement.

Later on Rep. Kremer released a statement, titledBeyond Parody: Liberal Media Shocked to Discover Christians Exist, where he states,

I appreciate the concerns of my Democrat colleagues and the liberal media for providing some well-timed lightheartedness and comedic relief with their inquiries and stories related to a vital policy issue - the age of the earth. Wisconsin has completely skipped fake news and progressed to no news. Apparently this crisis trumps the need to report on the increase in shootings, carjackings, or the drug epidemic, and our Republican led solutions.

Interestingly enough, my hypothesis regarding the need for 1st amendment and free expression protections on our college campuses was made abundantly clear by the lefts unhinged attacks following the reporting on a different point of view.

This was not fake news, this was not, no news, an elected representative in the state of Wisconsin lacks the scientific education to know that the Earth cannot possibly be 6000 years old. That is news. He went on to say,

What happens to a UW geology student who is a creationist? What happens to the student who hands out a copy of the Bill of Rights or a Bible on the campus? What happens to a meteorology major who defies global warming as settled science? Simply because one doesnt elicit their belief system means, once again, that differing beliefs and viewpoints shall not be heard.

I am not sure how a geology student at the University of Wisconsin could get a passing grade if they were a creationist, especially if they believed the Earth was only 6000 years old. Just because one believes something, does not make it a valid opinion. By his logic, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, and all kind of other crackpotunpopular beliefs should be held in the same esteem as scientific knowledge.

Do people who believe this garbage have right to speak their mind? Sure they do. They also need to be aware that those crackpot unpopular opinions will receive a certain amount of pushback. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences:Just ask Bart Sibrel. In 2002 he confronted Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, by demanding Mr. Aldrin admit he never walked on the moon. Buzz Aldrin, then 72, punched Mr. Sibrel in the face. I am not one to condone violence but, Mr. Sibrel had it coming.

People who push conspiracy theories, creationism, flat-earthism, climate change denial, young earthism, and a host of other crackpot unpopular opinions do not deserve a seat at the table. I know I will hear about this in comments, but these people need to be ridiculed. If they want a public audience it should be on a street corner, not a University campus.

The bill also states that all University institutions must remain neutralon public policy controversies. The problem with that statement is many things that are settled science, or what are generally thought of as societal norms, are considered controversial to many on the right. Climate change, evolution, womens rights, civil rights, and a host of other topics would fall under this umbrella. If a student group invited the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, you could not shout him down in the lecture hall.He would be allowed to have free speech; however, a student would be denied his or her free speech rights.

Assembly Bill 299 is an affront to the FirstAmendment, if it passes the Senate (which is likely) and if Governor Walker signs it into law it will be challenged in court;it will cost the taxpayers in Wisconsin millions of dollars to defend a law that Iikelywould not pass Constitutional muster.

This is just another gambit by Wisconsin Republicans to silence dissent, andto allow their crackpot unpopular beliefs and theories to have an equal seat at the table of sound, researched facts. They cannot accept that their beliefs are challenged. They have been trying for years to discredit climate change research. Now, if a climate change denier is invited to campus, a student majoring in atmospheric and oceanic studies cannot challenge the speaker and his/her misguided beliefs. Dissent is not always pretty, it is sometimes loud and uglybut it is necessary for a democracy to function.

Continue reading here:
Free speech is only for conservatives - Daily Kos