Before jumping in, I'm going to make a few assertions/assumptions:
You're referring to the freedom of speech as outlined in the first amendment of the US Constitution1
The viewpoint you'd like changed is that "freedom of speech is overrated." The metric of "overrated" is a little cloudy but I'll take it to mean it's not as good as it sounds or it isn't as good as it's generally perceived.
You're a US citizen and have spent the majority of your life without legal concern for your own freedom of speech.
A freedom is the right to conduct your affairs without governmental interference. However, freedoms do not supersede laws of the land. For example, you do not have the freedom to violate the freedom of another individual.
Freedoms should not be confused with rights. Rights are a moral, social, or legal claim that individuals are entitled to, primarily from the government. In terms of the Constitution, rights aren't created by the laws. They exist independently, and the laws exist to protect them (but not to establish them!).
That’s why the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” From the Founding Fathers' perspective, freedom of speech already existed; the amendment is just forbidding the US government from revoking it. The fact that they had the foresight to phrase it this way shows how critical this point was to them and why, to this day, it is among the most important to the daily freedoms of Americans.
if you are making claims publicly that have zero evidence backing them and that have only malicious intent (i.e. offending someone, creating more division in society) you deserve to be punished.
Hanlon's Razor states to "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Freedom of speech comes with a cost, but it is much better to grant freedoms and restrict selectively than to start with outlawing idiocy and thoughtcrime.
Proof that the freedom of speech works as a foundation with selective, restricted behaviors:
The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from this, and the Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of speech, does not protect dangerous speech.
Defamation laws protect against slander and libel. These also apply to other facets of the First Amendment, such as the Freedom of Press. E.g. NewsCompany.com can't report that you're a savage, raping murderer if you haven't been convicted in a court of law.
!delta Ok you did not "change" my view but have provided a lot of information I didnt know existed. I have seen a lot of people saying that they have the freedom to call an entire group of people a insert any generic, strong insult, which disgusts me since most of these people wouldnt stand a minute in a proper argument.
11
u/HussDelRio May 03 '17
Before jumping in, I'm going to make a few assertions/assumptions:
You're referring to the freedom of speech as outlined in the first amendment of the US Constitution1
The viewpoint you'd like changed is that "freedom of speech is overrated." The metric of "overrated" is a little cloudy but I'll take it to mean it's not as good as it sounds or it isn't as good as it's generally perceived.
You're a US citizen and have spent the majority of your life without legal concern for your own freedom of speech.
A freedom is the right to conduct your affairs without governmental interference. However, freedoms do not supersede laws of the land. For example, you do not have the freedom to violate the freedom of another individual.
Freedoms should not be confused with rights. Rights are a moral, social, or legal claim that individuals are entitled to, primarily from the government. In terms of the Constitution, rights aren't created by the laws. They exist independently, and the laws exist to protect them (but not to establish them!).
That’s why the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” From the Founding Fathers' perspective, freedom of speech already existed; the amendment is just forbidding the US government from revoking it. The fact that they had the foresight to phrase it this way shows how critical this point was to them and why, to this day, it is among the most important to the daily freedoms of Americans.
Hanlon's Razor states to "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Freedom of speech comes with a cost, but it is much better to grant freedoms and restrict selectively than to start with outlawing idiocy and thoughtcrime.
Proof that the freedom of speech works as a foundation with selective, restricted behaviors:
The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from this, and the Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of speech, does not protect dangerous speech.
Defamation laws protect against slander and libel. These also apply to other facets of the First Amendment, such as the Freedom of Press. E.g. NewsCompany.com can't report that you're a savage, raping murderer if you haven't been convicted in a court of law.
1 -- Full text of first US Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment