Free speech. What is it ?

American's defend the 1st Amendment second only to the 2nd. It is imperative for a Democracy to maintain free speech but I do believe we have redefined what it means to engage in our 1st amendment rights.
Donald Trump has the right to "free speech" but I believe that he does not have the "right" to lie when running for public office. It seems that lying has become the norm, not sure where it started, (probably in our justice system since everyone has a right to a "story" whether that story be composed of obvious lies or not.....) but the idea was heightened by Fox News. Not really a news station at all but licensed as entertainment.
It was mentioned in a different thread on here that we have more media sources than ever before and I would agree with that, however, they are all toast right now. All of them. I believe it is simply beyond the principles of "free speech" to print what ever it is you want.....lies, slander, accusations and twisted misrepresentations under the guise of exercising one's 1st Amendment rights and then call it "News".

When Ms Palin walked out on the stage years back and opened her mouth.....she had a right .....she was covered under her right to free speech, she opened the nasty Pandora's box that became Trump. Don't our leaders have some responsibility in maintaining "civil speech" ? It can be free as can be but there should be a level of truth and civility when speaking to a crowd ....... Civil ..... Truthful.... speech should be expected from our leaders and our news sources.....this does not mean it can not be free.

Today the Bloviating Blowheart tweeted, accusing Obama of wire tapping his Tower. He has been consistently untruthful.......but he is free to speak his mind. He is free to tweet whatever, without taking responsibility for his words. Unfortunately America is now responsible for the Tweeting Tantrumer in Chief.
I guess I wonder when free speech starts to interfere with social responsibility. Where is the line crossed when untruths, lies, threats and plain nastiness become harmful to the entire society ? It is my belief that as individuals we should take responsibility for our own critical thinking skills.....we should, in today's world of info, be responsible for researching our news sources. Unfortunately there are enough American's who do not assume this responsibility.....in fact they rather like the nasty, the low down and all that anger it can engender. This is, after all, why Trump won.

Like all things, I think the idea of "free speech" has been sorely abused.

That's an easy question to answer. Free speech is speech that is free-- from censorship by anyone. When you have the freedom to say or write anything you want, no matter how offensive or false or silly or even repulsive without penalty or punishment.

The real question is: when should speech be limited or unfree? Because most people agree that some forms of speech should not be allowed in certain circumstances (false accusations and death threats, for example).

Personally, I favour more free speech, not less. It is one of the most basic rights, and the foundation of a free society.

>2 madpoet: Unfortunately free speech is all over the internet. It can be, when abused, not only detrimental to conversation, but change the dynamics of how we view our reality. I remember a few things learned during my formative years......I was free to have my own opinion but I should phrase in such a way as to make a point not attack an individual, in some instances it was better to keep my mouth shut as nothing productive could come from anything I had to say, and to respect others in a manner I would like to be respected. I do believe, that although there were always the idiots who spewed garbage, the manner in which we spoke to one another was somewhat framed by the circumstances and the import of what and where one was during the discussion. I don't think that much holds true anymore. The internet has made it possible to assume the worst, spew the nastiness and find that there are little repercussions as nobody can see you. I guess this is free speech but it is leaking into how we are conducting our government, hearing our news and dealing with each other on a day to day basis. I don't find it to be either pleasant, productive or very informative. Perhaps it would do a world of wonders if debate classes became a norm for today's students....there are rules of engagement and ignoring them under the guise of a right to speak out seems to be not working all that well.
Our discourse has turned nasty, our manner of speech is often threatening and truth is of no consequence. How is society to progress under freedom such as this . We are not doing so well.

I think you have a point. People are more careful what they say to someone face to face because there are consequences. You might get punched. Or at least, one can see their facial expression register shock, anger, sadness or hurt, and feel empathy with that person. You don't see that on the Internet, where people use made up names and never meet the other person in real life.

It's ironic that 'social media' leads to such anti-social behaviour.

On the other hand, LibraryThing has fairly clear TOS that allows, like you said, freedom to criticize issues but not people. But some members have not been happy with that, and wanted LT to block other members who were too extreme, in their view. (Well, there was one woman who was literally a NAZI sympathizer.)

>5 madpoet:

(Well, there was one woman who was literally a NAZI sympathizer.)

Who? In ten years I've been on LT I've never come across a female Nazi sympathiser. A few male ones, yes (one or two still intermittently active). But I've ignored Pro & Con on several occasions for long periods, and of course other groups.

>6 LolaWalser: I think this is the thread >5 madpoet: was referencing http://www.librarything.com/topic/127481

>7 alco261: Wow! I shouldn't have checked that link out.

>7 alco261:

Thanks, yes, missed that... no regrets either... :)

Free speech is allowing speech that you despise/hate.

It's often confused with 'consequence-free' speech, in which you can say/write what you want, and suffer no consequences for doing so; a right that is not in the Constitution.

(Note that 'free speech' applies when the government is suppressing speech. Private forums (such as LT) may choose to allow free speech; but they have the right to remove or censor speech as well.)

>7 alco261: Yes, thank you. That was it. She all but said 'Heil Hitler'. She sure tested my own tolerance for free speech.

>11 madpoet: You LIVED through that?

BTW, I've noticed that people who are really, really into conspiracy theories (of whatever political stripe) sooner or later, in the end, blame 'the Jews.' You'd think, just once, they could find some other scapegoat/bogeyman.

>12 RickHarsch: I didn't actually participate (you can't argue with crazy) I just observed from a safe distance, armed with a pointy stick.

>11 madpoet: Yup, she was a real piece of work. She had her library listed as private. I got to wondering just what she was reading/cataloging so I used her tag cloud and ran a reverse look up. What came back was pretty much what you would expect given what was posted.

So just the one book, then.

>16 RickHarsch: No she had quite a few. Most of the books she made passing reference to in her extended diatribe as well as a number of other very right wing tombs.

(That was a Mein Kampf joke)

>18 RickHarsch: Yes, I realized that. Given what was posted on that thread I wish the one book had been her entire library - at least I could have taken some comfort in the thought that she hadn't supported that portion of the publishing spectrum with her income.

>20 RickHarsch: I missed a joke yesterday in another group so perhaps I was hoping you missed mine.