Do the majority of Americans truly want to live in a free speech society?

the postmans wrote:

Yes, but I find too many people misunderstand what "free speech" means in the context that exists in society. Twitter deleting your post is not a violation of free speech. Your (private) employer firing you because they feel you made them look bad is not a violation of free speech.

Well, strictly speaking those example are quite literally a violation of free speech. To be specific, what you are saying is that those are not violations of your constitutional right to free speech.

That gets to an important question. How much do Americans know that they don't have much freedom in this country. So much of the world we live in has been "privatized" where the constitution doesn't really apply. If you don't own the private property you are in (virtual or real), then your freedom of speech depends on your host.

energeticlotuseater wrote:

This is a sincere question that may come off as a leading question but really is not meant to be one. Do you think 50% + Americans truly want to live in a free speech/free expression society? I know no society has complete freedom of speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre) but free speech in that you can voice your political or social beliefs, even the most horrific, without the arm of the government coming down and punishing you is what I am talking about.

You must not be American. Every person living in America has that right now.

Libs label anything they disagree with as hate speech. No, libs do NOT want free speech.

NYDCRunner1 wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

This is a sincere question that may come off as a leading question but really is not meant to be one. Do you think 50% + Americans truly want to live in a free speech/free expression society? I know no society has complete freedom of speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre) but free speech in that you can voice your political or social beliefs, even the most horrific, without the arm of the government coming down and punishing you is what I am talking about.

You must not be American. Every person living in America has that right now.

Yes, I know. The question I’m asking is if this is truly a right Americans want to give each other? If you made Americans the czar of the United States with full dictatorial powers would they allow free speech to continue or would they try to stamp out views they do not agree with using the arm of the state?

Ryan Foreman wrote:

the postmans wrote:

Yes, but I find too many people misunderstand what "free speech" means in the context that exists in society. Twitter deleting your post is not a violation of free speech. Your (private) employer firing you because they feel you made them look bad is not a violation of free speech.

Well, strictly speaking those example are quite literally a violation of free speech. To be specific, what you are saying is that those are not violations of your constitutional right to free speech.

That gets to an important question. How much do Americans know that they don't have much freedom in this country. So much of the world we live in has been "privatized" where the constitution doesn't really apply. If you don't own the private property you are in (virtual or real), then your freedom of speech depends on your host.

..."too many people misunderstand what "free speech" means in the context that exists in society"

Yes most Americans value our civil liberty.

Liberties

balanceboard wrote:

There's always been cancel culture in one form or another. Jim Crow was cancel culure.

You don't even have to go back that far. How many people on the right were standing up for Kaepernick's free speech? When the Dixie Chicks got canceled for their free speech, it wasn't like there was a line of free speech conservatives out there saying defending them.

You have a right to free speech. You should also expect people to judge you based on how you use it.

Kapperdink did it on his employer's watch and the fan's sponsorship. It was viewed as unpatriotic or traitorous. That type of free speech is not tolerated well. However, he is free to kneel in the town square without the fear of the Government arresting him.

We could go to a country like Russia or China and get arrested when we talk poorly about our political leaders and that talk gets a lot of publicity. That sounds great! Or go to Iran and potentially get executed for talking crap about their leaders

Lib here and I support free speech. Glad to hear opposing views on issues. Always something to learn from another persons point of view.

Free speech only really means one thing: the government will not come after you or arrest you for saying things. You can say the president is an idiot or anything you like as long as it's not a threat and the cops won't show up. That is your freedom of speech. That right there.

Freedom of speech, as a legal right, does not mean you are not in business, personal relations, or otherwise responsible for your remarks. If I say my boss' wife looks like an old fat cow, the cops won't pay me a visit but he may well fire me and has that right unless my contract states otherwise.

I don't think this concept of freedom of speech should be so confusing.

The constitutional right to free speech might end with the government, but an ethos of free speech certainly does not. If we are collectively okay with severe consequences being levied on people for expressing trivial, harmless, and/or reasonable things (as I think was the case with, say, Gina Carano), then I would say we’re not upholding our cultural commitment to free speech

crm023 wrote:

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

Yes I think 50%+ do want that.

What most people fail to understand is that right of free speech ends with the government. They don't realize that saying something racist, homophobic or misogynistic does not protect them from their employers retaliation, social media or other private business.

The constitutional right to free speech might end with the government, but an ethos of free speech certainly does not. If we are collectively okay with severe consequences being levied on people for expressing trivial, harmless, and/or reasonable things (as I think was the case with, say, Gina Carano), then I would say we’re not upholding our cultural commitment to free speech

Isn't that the great thing about free speech ethos of the country. Private companies don't have to answer to anyone but their shareholders and customers. I don't think what happened to Gina C. was severe. A company didn't want to be associated with her personal beliefs and they cut ties.

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

crm023 wrote:

The constitutional right to free speech might end with the government, but an ethos of free speech certainly does not. If we are collectively okay with severe consequences being levied on people for expressing trivial, harmless, and/or reasonable things (as I think was the case with, say, Gina Carano), then I would say we’re not upholding our cultural commitment to free speech

Isn't that the great thing about free speech ethos of the country. Private companies don't have to answer to anyone but their shareholders and customers. I don't think what happened to Gina C. was severe. A company didn't want to be associated with her personal beliefs and they cut ties.

I don’t think that anyone is really arguing that Disney or any other private company doesn’t have the right to fire someone who may potentially embarrass them.

However, in regard to the question, I do think we as a country are not as friendly to free speech as we may think. Private citizens often put pressure on companies to fire employees who say things they don’t agree with. This is a very common phenomenon. If these sane private citizens were then given real czar like power to censor speech they didn’t like I’m sure they would use it.

I don’t know if the majority of country would use this czar like power to stamp out free speech but I do think a very substantial amount of the population would.

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

crm023 wrote:

The constitutional right to free speech might end with the government, but an ethos of free speech certainly does not. If we are collectively okay with severe consequences being levied on people for expressing trivial, harmless, and/or reasonable things (as I think was the case with, say, Gina Carano), then I would say we’re not upholding our cultural commitment to free speech

Isn't that the great thing about free speech ethos of the country. Private companies don't have to answer to anyone but their shareholders and customers. I don't think what happened to Gina C. was severe. A company didn't want to be associated with her personal beliefs and they cut ties.

Glad that you get it.

Rush Limbaugh ,may he be rotting in hell, would 100% be in jail if I was free speech Czar.

Whoever doesn't isn't truly an American, so yes.

Everyone against free speech should be loaded onto boats and shipped off to an appropriate dictatorship.

Uncle Sammy wrote:

Kapperdink did it on his employer's watch and the fan's sponsorship. It was viewed as unpatriotic or traitorous. That type of free speech is not tolerated well. However, he is free to kneel in the town square without the fear of the Government arresting him.

Of course. But you will notice how none of the right wingers who are complaining about lack of "free speech" when they voice unpatriotic or traitorous views stood up for him. The were fine with him getting canceled because they didn't like what he was saying.

In american society, you have a right to free speed but you are not free from the consequences of that speech. There are some specific limits but nobody is getting silenced for political views and thrown in the gulag.

If you want to argue there is some overreaction (i.e. is a racist rant after learning you GF is sucking someone else D, Singing along to a rap song in your car) to some actions? Maybe. The line between public/private has become blurred and a tolerance for a lot of homophobic/racist stuff has dropped several orders.