Freedom of Speech

[thaikhan]

Is free speech truly free if it can be limited by your government?

[HighStepper]

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:  "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech."

Freedom of speech includes the right:

• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war ("Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.").Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Link

Is free speech truly free if it can be limited by your government?

You can see by the above court cases how it has been determined what is covered and not covered under free speech. So, your question as posed needs a little more context. What specifically is the issue of your concern.
Free Speech - Criminalized Listening
https://youtu.be/SE34T_xYhx0?t=46

[Romanticlover]

The government can censor objectionable material(nudity, foul language, etc) in movies and books if children can see them, some states have required porn websites to make sure visitors are at least 18(which is impossible to enforce).
Social media websites can censor material if it violates it's TOS, that's the reason Musk bought Twitter.
You don't have freedom of speech at your work, I've known a few people who were fired for saying inappropriate things.

[bats]

The government can censor objectionable material(nudity, foul language, etc) in movies and books if children can see them, some states have required porn websites to make sure visitors are at least 18(which is impossible to enforce).
Social media websites can censor material if it violates it's TOS, that's the reason Musk bought Twitter.
You don't have freedom of speech at your work, I've known a few people who were fired for saying inappropriate things.

You really believe Elon Musk spent $44 billion in the interest of free speech? Listen, I have this bridge for sale...

Musk bought Twitter to help Trump win the presidency because of his thirst for money and power. He knew Trump would give him an outsized hand in government affairs, something every greedy Titan of Industry relishes.

[Hobby]

I believe that the purpose of the 1st amendment is to prevent the government from censoring speech that opposes government actions.  As with any freedom or right there are those that will abuse the freedom.

[Romanticlover]

You really believe Elon Musk spent $44 billion in the interest of free speech? Listen, I have this bridge for sale...

Musk bought Twitter to help Trump win the presidency because of his thirst for money and power. He knew Trump would give him an outsized hand in government affairs, something every greedy Titan of Industry relishes.

That might have had something to do with the purchase but I think Musk truly believes in freedom of speech and some of his posts were deleted back in 2020, he's also rich and wanted a shiny new toy. If I was the richest person in the world I would buy a social media website.

[thaikhan]

The reason why I ask this question is because many other countries have a form of freedom of speech with the caveat that it can be infringed or interrupted at any given time. Canada said you have the freedom of speech but the government can take it away when we feel like it. The UK has been fining and jailing people for offensive tweets on X. Thankfully here, as long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others, you can say what you feel. It doesn't mean there aren't any ramifications or legal backlash but there won't be any criminal charges. Maybe civil suits, just ask Alex Jones. I say this because the USA is in the unique position of still having a true freedom of speech that is upheld. What other countries have that? I'm doing because I'm generally curious as to what other countries have a freedom of speech that is comparable to ours.

[bats]

That might have had something to do with the purchase but I think Musk truly believes in freedom of speech and some of his posts were deleted back in 2020, he's also rich and wanted a shiny new toy. If I was the richest person in the world I would buy a social media website.

Musk is perhaps the most hypocritical "free speech absolutist" in history. He likes free speech that favors his business interests and fights speech that doesn't. This is well documented.

I still have that bridge for sale.

[bats]

The reason why I ask this question is because many other countries have a form of freedom of speech with the caveat that it can be infringed or interrupted at any given time. Canada said you have the freedom of speech but the government can take it away when we feel like it. The UK has been fining and jailing people for offensive tweets on X. Thankfully here, as long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others, you can say what you feel. It doesn't mean there aren't any ramifications or legal backlash but there won't be any criminal charges. Maybe civil suits, just ask Alex Jones. I say this because the USA is in the unique position of still having a true freedom of speech that is upheld. What other countries have that? I'm doing because I'm generally curious as to what other countries have a freedom of speech that is comparable to ours.

The Canadian government can't arbitrarily decide when to limit free speech. Instead, they have a rule that applies to all the rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those rights are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In practice, this may not be much different from what we have in the U.S. I've known some Canadians, and I don't recall any of them ever suggesting that things would be great if only they had the same guarantee of free speech as exists in the U.S.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html

[HighStepper]

This is not directed at the OP specifically. Free Speech, why the FUCK do you care?

[bligslick]

With regard to purchasing said bridge...

The constant condescension is getting old. If you think talking down to people is going to change their minds, you're sorely mistaken. All it does is turn people off and make them less likely to engage with your argument. If you actually want to convince anyone, maybe try a little more respect and a little less 'I'm right, you're wrong.' It's way more effective.

And if the goal is to make people with differing views feel like they're inferior or don't understand 'the facts,' congratulations. You've succeeded in that. But if you're actually interested in fostering a meaningful conversation, maybe try engaging without the superiority complex.

[bats]

This is not directed at the OP specifically. Free Speech, why the FUCK do you care?

Is this a trick question? lol

For one thing, people must be able to counteract any false information put out by their government. So, for example, if conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer RFK Jr gets that appointment as head of HHS, we won't necessarily be able to rely on government sources for good health information.

Also, if Trump gets his way on the issue of converting tens of thousands of civil servants to political appointees, then the quality of information from the government could be further degraded.

[bats]

With regard to purchasing said bridge...

The constant condescension is getting old. If you think talking down to people is going to change their minds, you're sorely mistaken. All it does is turn people off and make them less likely to engage with your argument. If you actually want to convince anyone, maybe try a little more respect and a little less 'I'm right, you're wrong.' It's way more effective.

And if the goal is to make people with differing views feel like they're inferior or don't understand 'the facts,' congratulations. You've succeeded in that. But if you're actually interested in fostering a meaningful conversation, maybe try engaging without the superiority complex.

I like the alliteration in "constant condescension," but that isn't my intent.

My use of the well-worn American idiom about having a bridge for sale was meant to convey sarcasm to make a point about the poster's comment, not to belittle the poster personally.
Very often, posters in this forum express differing opinions. It seems evident that each believes his opinion to be "right" and the contrasting opinion to be "wrong."

That doesn't mean one person thinks he's personally superior to the other, although the subject matter here can lead to some heated debate.

[HighStepper]

With regard to purchasing said bridge...

Denotes gullibility in a belief. I understand your taking exception to the idiom, and not wanting to discuss with the poster making the comment . My opinion is Elon Musk is trying to sell me a bridge and I'm not buying.

Bridges notwithstanding any thoughts about:

Musk is perhaps the most hypocritical "free speech absolutist" in history. He likes free speech that favors his business interests and fights speech that doesn't. This is well documented.

My additional thinking:
Elon Musk said in an SEC filing, "I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy," Link

Elon Musk's social media app X is supercharging the spread of voter-fraud conspiracy theories with the help of artificial intelligence, boosting unfounded claims. Link

Elon Musk's social media platform X is suing California over a new state law targeting deceptive, AI-generated election content, claiming that it violates First Amendment free speech protections.
The measure also compels online platforms to label so-called deepfake content as being inauthentic and set up procedures for California residents to report content that is not in compliance. Link

[thaikhan]

Canada's freedom of speech is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the country's constitution. The Charter guarantees freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media. It also protects the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
The Charter's protection of freedom of expression is based on the idea that it's essential for a democratic society. It's valued for its role in:
Encouraging the search for truth: Through the open exchange of ideas
Fostering individual self-fulfillment: By allowing people to express themselves
Promoting participation in democracy: By allowing people to criticize the government, discuss public policy, and offer solutions to social problems
However, the Charter does allow the government to impose "reasonable" limits on free speech. For example, the Commission can suspend or revoke the license of a broadcaster if they violate the conditions of their license or mandatory orders.