Should there be legal limits on our freedom of expression when using social media?

There is no such thing as freedom of expression

just stating it is hypocritical

Reply 22

nulli tertius

Original post by LostAccount

There should be no limits on freedom of speech whatsoever.

So I should have the right to accuse you of being a child molester?

Reply 23

AngeryPenguin

18

Put it another way - why should your freedom to speak your mind trump everyone else's right not to be offended?

If you look at hate speech as a form of violence - which it is - then the answer would be blatantly, and resoundingly, 'NO'.

Reply 24

OP

Original post by Notoriety

Social conventions are normally enforced by others (i.e. society), rather than coming from within. So I think they mean not saying X because you think saying X will lead to public condemnation by others.

Indeed, and in following certain our moral principles we also impose limits on own personal behaviour and conduct. For instance, one may be respect for others. You may find the following extract from Plato's Apology, interesting. It is a report of Socrate's speech at his trial often refered to as the 'unexamined life' principle:

"I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less. This is as I say, gentlemen, but it is not easy to convince you. Besides, I am not accustomed to think that I deserve anything bad. If I had money, I would have proposed a fine..."

Reply 25

OP

Original post by TheTroll73

There is no such thing as freedom of expression

just stating it is hypocritical

Interesting view, can you explain a little more please. Did you intend a critical point: in that the concept freedom of speech is a myth masking our un-freedom?

Reply 26

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

So I should have the right to accuse you of being a child molester?

I see, but an accusation is generally a statement supported by credible evidence which is then tested in the trial process. Another principle is that the accused has a right to refute the accusatory statement.

Reply 27

username1339858_

16

I think restrictions will cause a rebellion, let us see what people's real views are.
To have restrictions in place, it would have to be very clear where the lines are exactly.

Reply 28

username1339858_

16

*further restrictions

Reply 29

nulli tertius

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

I see, but an accusation is generally a statement supported by credible evidence which is then tested in the trial process. Another principle is that the accused has a right to refute the accusatory statement.

But I am not talking about this.

To those who say that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech, I am saying do I have the right to make an unsupported allegation of child molestation and then do I have the right to organise a mob to shout you down if you attempt to protest your innocence?

Reply 30

Notoriety

22

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

I see, but an accusation is generally a statement supported by credible evidence which is then tested in the trial process. Another principle is that the accused has a right to refute the accusatory statement.

But on social media, this model doesn't really work because people want quick and non-contentious facts. They accept Trump didn't visit a French memorial for WWI soldiers because he didn't want to get wet -- Twitter heavily supports this reductionist and headline-focused storytelling. nulli's good name and reputation would be enough for the audience to believe his accusation, and the audience would never think twice. Unless someone equally authoritative, at least comparably authoritative, said nulli's process of accusing you was beyond the rules of natural justice -- then the audience would pay heed to this headline.

Innocent till proven guilty is not familiar to most, even serious, writers on the Internet.

Reply 31

OP

Original post by Sammylou40

Who decides what’s offensive?
It’s subjective
I am offended by very different things to my husband for example.
Im offended by the ‘c’ word for example. It’s not illegal. To me it’s offensive, to others it’s just a word that’s thrown around.
Very trivial example I’m aware but where is the line drawn?
Does it need to offend a large majority before it’s censored or is one enough?
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also believe that I can frame my speech in a way that makes it impersonal.
I also think that people need to toughen up a bit.
There are far too many people who like to be offended for being offendeds sake. And on behalf of others too.

An excellent point - taking offence is subjective, but it does not follow that the speaker can be careless about what they say. It seems to me that respect for the other is a necessary condition characterising effective freedom of expression that can cause 'offence' to power.

Reply 32

OP

Original post by Notoriety

But on social media, this model doesn't really work because people want quick and non-contentious facts. They accept Trump didn't visit a French memorial for WWI soldiers because he didn't want to get wet -- Twitter heavily supports this reductionist and headline-focused storytelling. nulli's good name and reputation would be enough for the audience to believe his accusation, and the audience would never think twice. Unless someone equally authoritative, at least comparably authoritative, said nulli's process of accusing you was beyond the rules of natural justice -- then the audience would pay heed to this headline.

Innocent till proven guilty is not familiar to most, even serious, writers on the Internet.

Good point, do we therefore need to question the structure and purpose of social media? What is the purpose and function of the internet, connectivity and instantaneous and depersonalised communication? If you are right that reasoned debate supported by credible facts and evidence has been displaced in favour of speed and the unquestioned consensus read as 'fact' it seems to me this may suggest some fundamental conceptual difficulties and a realignment of university education and academic disciplines. What we take to be the academic rigour - a system that tests and questions assumptions, seeking to find knowledge and truth (or fact) may in fact be a fast changing contingent matrix of howled out beliefs and suppositions.

Reply 33

OP

Indeed, freedom of speech can only be exercised effectively and fully if it is subject to the respect for the other - i.e. we do not wish to harm others, in this sense it is unlimited, and part of what it means to be human. As to trials - one conception is that it is about each side telling the court the most convincing story - I mean an interpretation of the facts as they experience them. The other conception is of a trial as an exercise of control by power – the decider, rule giver. Have a read of Kafka’s The Trial for example.

Reply 34

LostAccount

17

Original post by nulli tertius

So I should have the right to accuse you of being a child molester?

Feel free. I believe back when people had balls and brains that was called crying wolf.

Reply 35

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

But I am not talking about this.

To those who say that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech, I am saying do I have the right to make an unsupported allegation of child molestation and then do I have the right to organise a mob to shout you down if you attempt to protest your innocence?

Interesting thank you. You claim certain rights, but can you tell me what is the source of (justification for) the legitimacy of these rights. In the course of these exchanges I think I was trying to argue that we humans have a right to unlimited freedom expression because it is bounded by our humanness - our respect for the Other: that is to say that our freedom of expression can only be unlimited because it is limited.

Reply 36

OP

Do you mean legal, social or moral restrictions?

Reply 37

Notoriety

22

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Good point, do we therefore need to question the structure and purpose of social media? What is the purpose and function of the internet, connectivity and instantaneous and depersonalised communication? If you are right that reasoned debate supported by credible facts and evidence has been displaced in favour of speed and the unquestioned consensus read as 'fact' it seems to me this may suggest some fundamental conceptual difficulties and a realignment of university education and academic disciplines. What we take to be the academic rigour - a system that tests and questions assumptions, seeking to find knowledge and truth (or fact) may in fact be a fast changing contingent matrix of howled out beliefs and suppositions.

I think very bright and educated peple, for example someone who can have original thoughts about philosophy or politics, are not so invested in criminal legal theory nor do they have the time to push back against the social medial reductionist model. And this is true no matter how bright you are -- you could be a lecturer with more degrees than you can count and still have to defer to Stephen Fry's understanding of Swaziland's culture or Brian May's Tweet about CERN.

The problem, for me, is the model of fast communication where you don't even have a chance to think before you are grabbed by the next sensation. I rather think the uneducated bloke in the working men's club, who spends 2-3 hours a day reading the Observer and the Telegraph, has more capacity to think for himself than the social medified intellectual elite. For one, the sources he is taking in have been double-checked and methodically considered to a greater degree than a blogger's reckoning -- so the information he is soaking in is more reliable. But more importantly, he has the time to use his brain to think about the issue himself and not to be a mindless drone retweeting the headline views of people who are from the same political or cultural group as himself, without considering the premises or reliability of sources which came together to make that headline.

Reply 38

nulli tertius

Original post by LostAccount

Feel free. I believe back when people had balls and brains that was called crying wolf.

The Duke of Wellington could say "publish and be damned" but his successor in office Field Marshall Lord Bramell did not have the same freedom of action.

Reply 39

OP