discuss Is Free Speech an Absolute Right or a Conditional Privilege?

[Yama]

Some people argue that free speech should be unrestricted, whereas others believe that there shouldn't be absolute free speech as hate speech and misinformation will spread in the name of free speech. Do you think countries should allow total free speech, even if might be harmful? Where should the line be drawn between protecting expression and preventing societal harm?

 

[NatureFreak]

There should be nothing like free speech because people will capitalize on it to say whatever they want knowing there won't be consequences.

 

[Apsara]

I believe free speech is a fundamental right, but it comes with responsibilities. In many societies, it’s not absolute because it can conflict with other important rights, like protection from harm or hate speech. For instance, speech that incites violence or spreads misinformation can be regulated.

 

[Harsh World]

Free speech is absolute. If I asked 10 people what hate speech was, I would get 10 different answers. It's a catchy line, "hate speech," but what is it? When it comes to the core of hate speech, it's an opinion, an opinion one hearing it can easily ignore.

For instance, speech that incites violence

Speech that incites violence or a call of action to violence is not free speech.

spreads misinformation

Who determines what misinformation is? One doctor could have an education that they determined, through their studies, that their theory is right, while another doctor could have determined another theory. Who would be spreading misinformation? I think that's up to the people receiving the information to look at both theories, and studies that led to those theories, and come to their conclusion on who is spreading misinformation. When you have a governing body decide which doctor is right, there can be bias, and they can be wrong, but it would be misinformation if you went against them.

 

[Apsara]

Who determines what misinformation is? One doctor could have an education that they determined, through their studies, that their theory is right, while another doctor could have determined another theory. Who would be spreading misinformation? I think that's up to the people receiving the information to look at both theories, and studies that led to those theories, and come to their conclusion on who is spreading misinformation. When you have a governing body decide which doctor is right, there can be bias, and they can be wrong, but it would be misinformation if you went against them.

That's a tricky question. The same thing might be an information for someone and misinformation for others. But I guess we should be using facts to determine whether it is an information or misinformation

 

[Harsh World]

But I guess we should be using facts to determine whether it is an information or misinformation

But the argument is that misinformation should be monitored and stopped. So, then we need to determine who is doing the monitoring and stopping it, and if they can have a bias, which is an innate human trait.

We could then put AI in charge of it, but you can see bias in it too, if not picking both choices.

It's a slippery slope to stop misinformation.

It's best to leave it up to the (reformed) education system to teach people how to find scholarly and peer-reviewed research journals and then determine what is misinformation on their own. No body should be able to label anything as misinformation as it leaves the door wide open to mark anything they don't like as misinformation so that nobody can see differing opinions.

 

[Apsara]

I never thought determining information and misinformation could push us to situation like this. This discussion reminds me the case of wikileaks. However, I agree with the solution about reformed education

 

[ActionAce]

In my opinion, free speech is our right but it needs restrictions. The freedom of speech is an element of democracy but it gives rise to negative effects at times. It gives rise to hate speech, misinformation and harassment which could damage our community.

Nations should create rules to simultaneously defend freedom of expression while also defending social security. So, governments should enact legislation that prohibits hate speech.