[redcarpet]

Most people can't even read and write. Literacy is essential
to a well functioning society. A fundamental requirement.

How can a democratic world state function properly if most
people can't research before being part of decisions to make
informed votes? They can't, or not much.

[Julian]

I think that Freedom of Speech is essential to good government

I am nervous about any laws to constrain free speech including laws against private reading of pornography and against hate crimes

Shouting "fire" in a theatre should be prosecuted as manslaughter not under rules designed to censor opposing views.

[Eran]

I believe freedom of speech is nothing but a subset of property rights.

You are free to use your property to speak. If you own a printing press, a web site, or a street corner (or have the permission of those who do), you can freely use on of them to speak.

However, you cannot, in the name of freedom of speech, commandeer the property of others to facilitate your speech. You cannot, for example, force the NY Times to run an ad with your content without paying them in the name of freedom of speech.

Nor can you use the excuse of speech to commit criminal acts ("criminal" in the normative sense, i.e. acts that ought to be criminal, as distinguished from acts that have merely been declared criminal by the legislator or a regulatory agency). For example, you cannot use the excuse of freedom of speech to commit fraud or assault.

Without the concept of property, "freedom of speech" is largely an empty title. With it, it knows no exceptions.


In the context of current society, government, of course, owns much of the public spaces. Freedom of speech then becomes a question of government policy with respect to allowing people to use those spaces for speech. That is a complicated problem, as government lacks the financial signals to conduct itself rationally, and is fraught with conflicts of interest between government decision makers' interest as individuals and their duties to the public.

Freedom of speech today is also severely limited by intellectual property, most often copyright considerations. As things stand, copyright holders can use the power of government to limit my freedom to use my property to speak, e.g. by writing a novel that uses characters "owned" by them.

[AFAIK]

It depends on the context. Lying is legal except when you take the stand in a court of law or commit fraud.

We're still struggling to put the internet into context. Social media and forums are very public but so are pubs and bars.

[Unthinking Majority]

I believe in free speech, but there needs to be some limits.

For one, in a healthy democracy, there needs to be limits on political campaign contributions and spending etc. by individuals/organizations/businesses. Many argue those are free speech issues, ie: why shouldn't I be allowed to spend as much as I want putting up signs and TV commercials for the candidate/party I support?

[keso]

We can and do criminalize lying,,, it's called fraud, defamation, misrepresentation, etc.

When I see Rush Limbaugh in court for one of the many mistruths that he spreads, I will believe you. Until then, I will not believe much of this.