I see I've arrived a bit late to this debate, but it seems it would be helpful for someone to bring it back to the original topic anyway.

So my 2c is that, yes, there need to be restrictions on speech. AFAIK no modern nation has had absolute free speech. For the sake of public safety, crime-fighting, protecting children, commerce, and other reasons crucial to the functioning of a society, there have always been restrictions.

So how do we define the "right kind" of free speech?
I would say it's not straightforward and it should be an ongoing, nuanced goal. But, in general, we should aim towards everyone being free to state an opinion, and/or disseminate information in good faith. Everything else is fair game for a society to decide on.

What do I mean by "good faith"?
I mean with some reason for believing it is true (I am against pundits having a "right to lie") and without the intent of causing harm (e.g. doxing).

I've not insulted you once. I've laid out exactly how incoherent your utterings are. They are, patently, out of step with reality. Everyone can see this but you. It is not incumbent on me to assuage your unregulated system of reason into thinking it makes any sense.

You have continually side-stepped everything important to hold on to an obviously, demonstrably false belief in the face of overwhelming examples of both of those claims. This is no one's problem but yours. If your feathers are ruffled (they clearly are) its becuase your beliefs are absolute nonsense and you are perhaps realizing it. This is no one's issue but yours.

That’s the sort of appeal to tradition they used to defend slavery, but you see it often to defend censorship. No nation has ever had absolute free speech, therefor we should keep censoring people. The mere existence of the tradition of censorship is no argument for its continuance.

That wasn't the argument. I listed some of the reasons why there has to be limits on speech. I just happened to also mention that no nation has had absolute free speech as illustrative of the fact that it's not practical.

But take that part out if you like, and the point remains: we have many legitimate reasons to constrain speech: public safety, protecting children, fighting crime, promoting business and commerce etc.

And who decides what those legitimate reasons are?

When Bertrand Russell was appointed to the City College of New York, conservative residents opposed it, filed lawsuits, and eventually got his position revoked because they feared his atheism and immorality with women. Clearly they believed those were legitimate reasons to protect “public safety”. But the act of censorship itself was entirely unjust.

Should those people be the ones to decide? What about the church or government, who have all been notoriously tyrannical when it comes to the suppression of dissent?

And who decides what those legitimate reasons are? — NOS4A2

You. And me, and everyone in whatever debate is the issue. Then it becomes policy, or not, depending on all of us.

But if you don't believe speech can directly lead to real harm perpetrated on others, then there is no need to debate, no need for any policy.

The irony is, you are trying to debate, with speech, the value of absolutely no government restrictions on speech. You don't see the irony here? You either have no point to be made, because speech can't change anything in the world, or your point is already proven because you have been free to say whatever you wanted anyway.

I don’t see the irony because I’m not trying to alter the world or other minds with speech, as if we had the power to do so. I’m writing here for my own enjoyment.

By pointing out that people cannot alter the world with speech as much as they claim they can, and that people overestimate the powers of speech, my point is that you have no reason to censor others. That’s it.

my point is that you have no reason to censor others. That’s it. — NOS4A2

If your point is that I have no reason to censor others - why make that point if the reason I have no reason to censor others is because making a point can have no effect on anything?

Still irony. You missed my point (but ironically tried to address it.)

So you enjoy debating, but don't care what the content of the debate is? You just take random positions and dig in? No effect on the world outside of your own enjoyment. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the fact that the government curtails speech all of the time with laws against fraud, conspiracy, fomenting riot - you could care less, and are not trying to change any policy. Got it.

Sorry, maybe I didn’t pick up your argument.

Personally, I make that point for many reasons: so others can read and think about it if they choose to, so I can hear arguments against my position, to challenge my own beliefs etc., none of which include altering the world with words in any way. So there is plenty of reasons, but zero effects on the world. Zero irony there.

So no, you don’t got it.

I make that point for many reasons: so others can read and think about it if they choose to — NOS4A2

Cause: I make a point.
Effect: others can think about it if they choose to.

ADDED:

Me: There's an elephant in your room. Can you see it over there?
You: I choose not to look in that direction and you can't make me.

Well, no, the cause of you reading what I write is you. You’re moving your eyes, digesting the words, and so on. I haven’t caused you to do anything.

But there's that elephant.

There is the substance of what you wrote. When I moved my eyes, I saw your words, no other. So in order not to seem totally insane, I didn't respond about how I fixed my toilet this weekend. My words are rationally related enough to your words to allow us to exchange our "digesting" as you said, and as I now must reference if I am to continue the causal relationship between us in this discussion.

You have caused me to digest "I make that point for many reasons:" and not digest "fixed my toilet" (which I am now causing you to digest, and disgustingly using "toilet" and "digest" in the same sentence.) You chose to read, so you are an important cause in your actions. For sure. But I am a cause, as well, because of the elephant - the toilet - the words cause specific effects in others. Just because you choose to consent to your own actions, doesn't mean those actions aren't guided by a context, and part of that context is my words. And context requires rational relationship, like cause and effect.

This has all been explained fifty ways before. I am predicting they have no effect on you. Which now makes it ironic that I re-entered this thread, again. Words really do have no effect on you. That is your victory - like a debate with a granite statue, words can have no effect. (Still ironic you keep using words at all though...)

By pointing out that people cannot alter the world with speech as much as they claim they can, and that people overestimate the powers of speech, my point is that you have no reason to censor others. That’s it. — NOS4A2

I feel you're not really engaging with the point though, that literally allowing any words to be spoken in any context would in some cases cause great harm for no benefit.

Some examples

1) A man standing outside a school gate, telling children sexual acts he would like to perform on them.

2) Going on TV and giving the identities of US spies currently undercover in China and Iran. Or heck, just reading out the decryption codes of US defence systems.

3) Why not -- the classic "fire in a theatre". I cause a stampede and 5 people die. No repercussions?

Now, if your response is that these examples are silly, as none of them are about censoring opinions, that was exactly my point. "Free speech" really just means freely stating opinions or passing on information (that doesn't primarily put people at harm).
An absolute position, where no words ever have legal consequences is completely unworkable.

Have you had a look through the previous pages? I think much of what you might want to canvas has been brought to the table and discussed. Have fun :P

It’s true: you or I would not have written what we wrote had either of us written something different. But I do not believe in counterfactual causation, and doubt causation as a folk science. The brute fact that you scrolled to my response, read it, thought about it, and formulated a response puts you at the helm of your actions at every instance. You could have just as easily not opened up the thread, not read it, not thought about it, and not formulated a response. “Guided by the context”? Might as well say your actions were caused by your computer, the owner of the website, the utility companies, the government, the universe.

It doesn’t matter anyways. You can say your actions were caused by the Big Bang, for all I care. If I remove causation my argument still stands: you cannot move or change or alter any person into some other action with words.

Yes, free speech invariably causes harm to the censor. We all know that. It’s why they censor. And they will make up imaginary scenarios to justify it.

It’s clear from your own examples that you want the government to decide what you can and cannot say.

It’s clear from your own examples that you want the government to decide what you can and cannot say. — NOS4A2

So I have put it to you that you are not engaging with the problems with absolute free speech and gave three examples to illustrate the problems.

Your response is to...just straight up ignore the examples. Again. And just imply again that any restriction on speech must be about the government deciding what views are allowed.

If you aren't going to engage with the points, why are you on a discussion forum?

Michael, Amadeus, me, Mijin, others - all totally different people who take radically different approaches on other issues, and who are all able to articulate complex ideas - all of us have said the same things in response to you.

There is something wrong with your position. You may still be right. None of us can see it. (Has anyone? It’s kind of stoic in a sense, is that what you are trying to say?). But nothing you are saying makes sense to anyone else.

That should give you some pause.

How can you be so obstinate and unreflective?

You are trying integrate:
1 personal autonomy
2 causally determined necessity
3 speech

You can’t have autonomy without both your own mind (which is where words live and breathe and are understood) and a world to be autonomous over, to have causal effect in.

Me slapping my hand across your face. That is not an effect in the world until your face resists my hand and your brain makes that slapping sound and sensation for you to enjoy as your own experience.

You are saying my slapping you across your face did not cause you to feel and hear a slap. You are saying your own brain caused these things and it is fully up to your free self to feel the slap, and/ or slap me back. Me, I am utterly not responsible for what happens in your experience.

That is what you are saying. Whether you like it or not.

To you words are just another slap in the face.

That is actually more coherent than what you are saying but is basically the best light Incan give your argument.

But none of this explains human behavior towards each other, because we seek to cause specific effects in others with words and slaps everyday, and so it makes no sense to try to figure out how we are NOT doing what we seek to do, and what is done to us, all of the time, namely cause various effects in others’ minds and actions.

You are saying my slapping you across your face did not cause you to feel and hear a slap. You are saying your own brain caused these things and it is fully up to your free self to feel the slap, and/ or slap me back. Me, I am utterly not responsible for what happens in your experience. — Fire Ologist

An absolutely excellent encapsulation of the issue. Thanks for that.

Michael, Amadeus, me, Mijin, others - all totally different people who take radically different approaches on other issues, and who are all able to articulate complex ideas - all of us have said the same things in response to you.

There is something wrong with your position. You may still be right. None of us can see it. (Has anyone? It’s kind of stoic in a sense, is that what you are trying to say?). But nothing you are saying makes sense to anyone else.

That should give you some pause.

That’s right, I’m the only person who has ever made such arguments—ever, as far as I can tell. I’m not surprised people disagree with it because they’ve been believing the opposite for their whole lives. And their beliefs give them the false sense that they have some sort of linguistic power over others. Why would you want to lose that?

That, to me, is why you’re employing the bandwagon fallacy, as others have already. You think it does something to me; maybe it makes me feel lonely over here all alone. But it doesn’t. And it doesn’t do your little group any favors when you have to resort to such efforts.

Me slapping my hand across your face. That is not an effect in the world until your face resists my hand and your brain makes that slapping sound and sensation for you to enjoy as your own experience.

You are saying my slapping you across your face did not cause you to feel and hear a slap. You are saying your own brain caused these things and it is fully up to your free self to feel the slap, and/ or slap me back. Me, I am utterly not responsible for what happens in your experience.

That is what you are saying. Whether you like it or not.

Of course, that’s not what I’m saying. As already indicated, blows like a slap transfer enough force to move and cause changes in the body, so much so to cause a litany of effects, including causing someone to lose consciousness, to bruise, to cut their lip, which in turn can lead to subsequent behaviors. I’m saying words do not have enough momentum, force, potential energy, and so on, to cause any such changes, and thus cannot lead to subsequent actions and behaviors.

That you’d have to resort to such a false analogies and other fallacies should give you some pause. How can you be so obstinate and unreflective?

All you have to do is tell me what parts of my body you can change and move with articulated sounds and marks on paper. Once doing so you can describe how these changes result in different actions and behaviors. For now, how is your theory any different than believing in telekinesis and sorcery? After all, you believe it so you ought to know your reasons for doing so.

So I have put it to you that you are not engaging with the problems with absolute free speech and gave three examples to illustrate the problems.

Your response is to...just straight up ignore the examples. Again. And just imply again that any restriction on speech must be about the government deciding what views are allowed.

If you aren't going to engage with the points, why are you on a discussion forum?

You gave three examples of speech you fear, ones you completely made up I might add. Then you finished it off with the “yelling fire in a crowded theater“ canard, which was used as a legal dictum to justify jailing critics of the First World War. It’s a good reminder that people will imagine scenarios where censorship could possibly be justified in order to justify jailing dissent.

I’m not sure why you refuse to answer the question. Do you want the government to decide what you can say or read?

Guys, let's just leave him to it. Nothing is going to move someone who is capable, in earnest, of responding to Fire's post with this:

"That, to me, is why you’re employing the bandwagon fallacy, as others have already. You think it does something to me; maybe it makes me feel lonely over here all alone. But it doesn’t. And it doesn’t do your little group any favors when you have to resort to such efforts."

This is not a person engaging in good faith, or with any reasonable basis. This is an embarrassed toddler saving face.

You gave three examples of speech you fear, ones you completely made up I might add. — NOS4A2

Firstly, so what if I made them up? We are speaking about principles, and setting laws. You think we don't need to consider what might happen?
Secondly, these scenarios *have* all happened, at least partially. So this whole talking point of "imagined scenarios" or whatever is garbage. They are realistic scenarios, you just don't like them because they show the flaw of an absolutist position on speech.

Then you finished it off with the “yelling fire in a crowded theater“ canard, which was used as a legal dictum to justify jailing critics of the First World War. — NOS4A2

So you've had plenty of time to consider an answer to the hypothetical. Let's hear it.

I’m not sure why you refuse to answer the question. Do you want the government to decide what you can say or read? — NOS4A2

I want the freedom to state any opinion, or good faith reporting. But yes, I am quite happy for the government to limit other speech e.g. say I can't claim a product is safe for human consumption when I know it isn't.

Firstly, so what if I made them up? We are speaking about principles, and setting laws. You think we don't need to consider what might happen?
Secondly, these scenarios *have* all happened, at least partially. So this whole talking point of "imagined scenarios" or whatever is garbage. They are realistic scenarios, you just don't like them because they show the flaw of an absolutist position on speech.

We have seen them. Socrates put to death because he corrupted the youth. Julian Assange jailed for leaking top secret info that embarrassed the government. Dissidents jailed for opposing the draft during WW1, based on the analogy that they were yelling fire in a crowded theater. Even the judge who came up with that dictum came to regret doing so.

These aren’t principles. They’re excuses. I don’t like them for the reasons I stated: they’re used to justify censorship.

I want the freedom to state any opinion, or good faith reporting. But yes, I am quite happy for the government to limit other speech e.g. say I can't claim a product is safe for human consumption when I know it isn't.

And there we have it. The problem is if you give them the power to decide what you can or cannot say, or anyone else, you don’t get what you want. You’ve effectively given them your freedom. You only get what they allow you to have.

This is not a person engaging in good faith, or with any reasonable basis. This is an embarrassed toddler saving face. — AmadeusD

Agreed. What a waste of time.

The censors and their cheerleader finally fall off.

Does that count as free speech, or, more generally, free expression?

Is flag burning protected speech? What to know about Trump's order (— BrieAnna J Frank, Bart Jansen · USA TODAY · Aug 25, 2025)