> Even free speech has its limits

It doesnt though, thats the point.

Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business.

With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listening to that person. They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.

In reality, people are weak and do not do these things. They keep buying the terrible products because they dont want to have to think about looking for a better alternative. They keep listening to the hate speech because its easier to respond in anger than to ignore the person. The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world. Again in reality this wioll never happen, and so people will keep shouting and shouting about what they dont like until the world ends up destroying itself through hate and anger.

>It doesnt though, thats the point.

Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?

>They keep listening to the hate speech

The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry -> Two Minutes Hate

>>The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate

> Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?

It depends on context. The legal test is called the "Imminent Lawless Action" Test in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Brandenbur...

> Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?

If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it becomes illegal. But to expect the law to punish someone just because they said 'I want to kill you'? That IMO is barbaric and completely ridiculous.

> If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal

While I appreciate your free speech maximalism, I can't help but feel you're shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

My feeling is that someone should be allowed to say that they hate me, and that they'd like to kill me. All the same, if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.

I'm fact I'm glad that they're allowed to express themselves like this because then I know who not to stand near cliff edges with.

For real though I think a lot (but not all) of opposition to things like hate speech is really an opposition to the feeling being expressed, rather than the expression itself. I'd prefer someone didn't have hatred in their heart, but once they do I prefer that they're open about it.

(You might say that that will only encourage others to become hateful, I don't necessarily agree, but it's a fair concern.)

I really like your opinion, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with what you are saying.

> if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.

This is the sticky issue which nobody is able to solve though. How do you prove someone will actually attemt to do it? Currently the legal system requires more than them just saying it to prosecute. There needs to be more motive, or evidence of actual persistent stalking or harm.

What do you think makes the difference between an idle threat and an actual intention of harm?

I don't have a good idea for how to determine whether a threat is sincere or not, or whether or not either party believes it to be so.

On the other hand, it may not be necessary. When I say the law can try to prevent my murder, I don't necessarily mean to deprive my would-be murder of liberty or privacy (since those should be protected in the absence of proven guilt). If you put the prevention on the other side, and offer e.g. a police escort or enforced blocks on communication media then maybe you can discourage/prevent my murder without answering difficult questions like intent.

You might well say, "I shouldn't have to do any of that, they should have to not murder", or "that's all fine but who's going to pay". I have a most marvellous answer to those, but is comment is too small to contain it.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am enjoying mulling over your responses.

> You might well say...

Well indeed I do say who is going to pay. If we had a society where you could get your own police escort or phone block just by saying that someone threatened you, I feel that service would be open to abuse and would end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot.

> I have a most marvellous answer to those

Please retort your answer, I am intrigued :)

> If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong?

In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die

> In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die

Yes agreed, and its also the reason we have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.

Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.

Unfortunately yes this means we have situations where people are not believed and go on to receieve harm. Humanity has decided as a society that this is less harmful than locking far too many innocent people up by mistake. I do not have an opinion on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what exists for us and created by us.

If you have a better idea for a more fair justice system then go advocate for it, but the whole history of humanity hasnt found one yet.

> Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.

You are incorrect, at least in California

https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/criminal-threats-califor...

> You are incorrect

Not quite

From your link: "the prosecutor must prove that the threats placed the victim in reasonable fear and that the fear was sustained"

You cant just be prosecuted for saying something. You always need to back it up and prove it was a real threat where harm was a real possibility or the victim was in sustained genuine fear of their life.

> The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry

Buddy, do a little bit of googling before you say plainly incorrect stuff like this. [1] [2]

Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.

I think everyone on the planet could identify the vast majority of hate speech from the age of like 11. They say the edgiest stuff, after all.

Even if you agree with hate speech, you can still identify it.

Also like… all words are made-up

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

> Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.

So, from the opposite direction, I have the same issue as the other commentator but with the divergent use of the word "woke" by those mostly on the right (and sarcastically by those on the left) — if the person hearing/reading it doesn't know what to expect, it's not a useful word.

Therefore, while I know what I mean by "hate speech" (demonising/dehumanising a group), I tend to avoid using the term as it doesn't successfully replicate my thoughts into the heads of other people.

The free market on its own doesn’t work, that’s why we have regulation in place to guide it to a place that minimises the long term damage while consumers try to maximise the short-term benefit.

It’s an interesting analogy to free speech.

> It’s an interesting analogy to free speech.

I agree, thanks for pointing that out. There are nuances on both sides which make it an interesting thought experiment to apply to the other side.

> > Even free speech has its limits

> It doesnt though, thats the point.

In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific).

There's a Wikipedia page with free speech exceptions in the USA. Those exceptions don't really seem weird, but just seeing that there are reasonable exceptions makes free speech absolutism less sensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Most of the limits on free speech don't pertain to the speech itself, but rather the speech being related to some other form of criminal conduct. Incitement to violence can be punished because of the violence; fraud can be punished because of the theft, etc.

So one can still be a free speech absolutist with respect to speech in itself, while still holding people responsible for unlawful activity that the speech is helping to facilitate.

Your logic here is circular. You're arguing definitions, it doesn't make sense to point to examples of places that claim to have free speech and decide that free speech must have limits because those places said they have it and they have limits.

You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.

Sure, you could easily say that, but it would be a pretty silly thing to say. The world is not black and white, as much as we'd like it to be sometimes.

It's ok as long as you don't want the world to be black xor white.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a read through of that.

Free speech in the US means they cannot make specific laws against proposing ideas, but a long history of legal cases does mean there are cases when you can be civilly or criminally liable if your words lead others to harmful actions

Its a weird grey area for sure. The best rationalization I have ever come up with is that when speech involves a legitimate threat to do harm, for example, that skips past just speech and can be seen as a step in actively planning to do harm. In certain situations, like murder or terrorism, we've agreed that simply planning to do it is a crime.

Combine the two and it isn't that you said something that is illegal, its that the statement is interpreted as a clear signal of actively planning to do something which itself is illegal.

That's a good rationalization indeed! It makes sense that you should be able to think and say "Y_Y is a jerk who deserves to die", but if you say it to my face then I might be reasonably upset to the point of considerable emotional harm, or if you say it from your pulpit it could reasonably be interpreted by one of your followers as an instruction to commit murder. The speech alone isn't the crime, but you can certainly commit different crimes purely by speaking (though the context is determinative).

It is quite nuanced, but generally it depends on your intent. If you plan how to commit a crime without intending or encouraging anyone to commit it, that is not illegal, but intending to commit a crime, even if some else does the actual deed or if nobody is even harmed, that is illegal, as they were the perpetrator and succeeded. Eg https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/80382/can-you-be-pun...

That's not how capitalism works because the between the companies and the customers is a Mismazch in power and information.

That's why governments make rules to protect those with less indormation and power.

According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.

Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?

And don't forget that many free speech apologetics say that free speech doesn't mean free of consequences. At this point it's clear that for most people free speech doesn't exitst because they censor their posts if say fear consequences.

> According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.

IMO it is

> Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?

Feel free to, you have that right. If people choose to act on it I will deal with it on my end appropriately, and I wont be complaining to you to stop saying what you have the right to.

What about cyber grooming?

So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?

> What about cyber grooming?

Words are still just words until they are acted on, but this is just my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

> So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?

Not sure where you got that from, of course it is possible. But we are all gatekeepers of our own minds.

You seem to be ignoring my responses and trying to lead me further into extreme examples to trap me. Carry on if you feel you must, but at the end of the day we both have our opinions and we are entitiled to them.

If an extreme example could trap you there would be limit to free speech, so there can’t be trap, just proof.

You overestimate the power of your mind. Constant attacks breaks everybody and don’t forget the mind of children and young people is even weaker. But it doesn’t matter because free speech over all?

Back to extreme examples, what about Charles Manson? He didn’t kill anybody, was his imprisonment wrong?

You seem incredibly intereseted in my opinion. Do I really need to give you a rundown of all high profile murdereres and paedophiles and what I think of them?

> You overestimate the power of your mind

No I dont. I am fully aware of mine and everybody elses weakness and bias.

> But it doesn’t matter because free speech over all?

Exactly!

I think you are overestimating your opinion, you come across as if you know everything thats right and wrong and everybody should have the same opinion as you.

Luckily for myself and free speech, opinions are subjective. Here you are trying your hardest to offend me and back me into a corner about what I think. Yet my overarching opinion is that you are free to say anything you like about me. I have no issue with your opinions, and if you didnt have issue with mine this would be a much nicer world to live in.

Try tolerence of other peoples opinions sometime, even if you dont agree with them. Its actually quite refreshing and liberating.

> It doesnt though, thats the point.

If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.

Such arguments have been convincing in many places and in many times, for many different reasons. Including the USA — the things that are considered "corrupting our youth" at different times and in different ways, plus a bunch of other stuff that society just doesn't function without banning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

> A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business.

Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?

> They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.

Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.

> The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world.

Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.

Had to tell one that not only did we support browsers other than Internet Explorer, but that they were themselves using Firefox at the time they claimed to only support Internet Explorer.

>If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.

As a more general approach to freedom, we can consider that freedom can only begin where it confirms others’ freedom. If we don’t act with reciprocity in mind, we are on the track to build some kind of hegemony, not to establish a society of free people.

> If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.

Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it.

> Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?

Yep, and if the majority of the world fully agrees that Twitter is in the wrong and is a horrible place then it will plummit further and cease to exist. The thing here is that there is a massive percent of the population that loves twitter as it is, and so it will continue as there are still enough people to justify the advertising.

> Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.

He didnt. He is trying to and we will see what hapopens there. Personally I think his case will be thrown out but thats just an opinion.

> Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.

I agree, I never said it was easy. In fact I said that the majority of the world will take the easy way out and not put the thought required into their reponses to things.

> Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it.

"Election".

Action very easy. They do it a lot. Did it this time, even, despite what they say.

> He didnt.

He did.

Here's the lawsuit that X Corp. filed: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...

That is him doing the thing.

> Did it this time, even, despite what they say.

I disagree.

> He did.

Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.

> Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.

This is not how people typically use the term. And if you look it up the dictionary also doesn't use it that way.

And while we're on this point, there's such a thing as vexation litigation. You should look that up too.

Because words are used to communicate between parties, one cannot unilaterally define an existing term to mean whatever they wish it to mean. (Another good thing to look up: Humpty Dumpty and the meaning of words.)

> This is not how people typically use the term. And if you look it up the dictionary also doesn't use it that way.

Yeah fair enough, I am not a laywer and so am not knowledgable on exact legal definitions. However you argued your point as if he was successful, which he is not, and so your point is moot until a ruling.

No need to go off on other tangents that I have not mentioned anything about, then again you have the right to free speech so feel free to rattle on about whatever you want!

> I disagree.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/media/white-house-ap-ban-...

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/julianne-moore-donald-tru...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/13/pentagon-sch... (Wasn't this the villain's plot in one episode of Buffy?)

https://www.statnews.com/2025/02/13/trump-dei-ban-banned-wor... ("Trans" is a common prefix in chemical words, irregardless of humanity, this is stupid)

> Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.

To sue is to file.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/sue#:~:text=Brit%20%2F...

For the case I linked to, the status appears to be "Oral argument in the Fifth Circuit is scheduled for February 18, 2025" i.e. tomorrow: https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/x-corp-v-media-matters

Lots of people can't fight lawsuits even if they're in the right. This is called "lawfare" or a "SLAPP".

Here's the result of a different SLAPP case that he was involved in, that was dismissed by a judge because it was identified as a SLAPP case by a judge in a jurisdiction where that's deemed anti freedom-of-speech:

"""A judge in California on Monday dismissed the tech billionaire Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a non-profit that has published reports chronicling the rise of racist, antisemitic and extremist content on X, formerly Twitter, since Musk’s acquisition.

The case was dismissed in accordance with the state’s anti-Slapp law, which forbids nuisance lawsuits intended to punish the exercise of free speech.""" - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/25/elon-musk...

Thanks for the informative post, have an upvote :)

There's nothing inconsistent with people who don't call themselves "free speech absolutists" not being free speech absolutists.

There's a lot inconsistent with someone masquerading as a "free speech absolutist" whilst actually drawing the line in a different place, in this case a place which has all sorts of arbitrary new offences like references to the word "cis", ADS-B feeds, and parody accounts and whatever else has annoyed him recently whilst removing more posts at government request than his predecessors, but is mostly cool with racial hatred.

Musk isn't a free speech absolutist, but he is a free speech proponent.

It is disingenious of progressives to claim that he isn't, because he doesn't allow xyz edge case, when they concurrently believe that being a free speech advocate doesn't require allowing all speech.

Elon Musk literally said he's a free speech absolutist multiple times.

The "lane" is simple and has always been: no "right", as fundamental as it can be, is limitless. For ex. Freedom of movement is largely restricted, and the fact I can't "enter your house freely" is not a slippery slope to internal visas as the sort China uses to restrict movement internally.

Even in the US, freedom of speech IS restricted: the Supreme Court put the bar very high but it didn't say you could say anything. State secrets can't be revealed willy-nilly; even lower, you can't enter a non-disclosure agreement and then violate it.

The "lane" is that we try as much as possible to put clear, consistent guideline that apply to everyone through a legislative (actual laws) and judicial (precedent) process. This is absolutely not the same as Musk deciding on his own, inconsistent, ridiculous fits of drug-addled rage, where he bans the word "cisgender" or @elonjet for his own safety and then allows complete nazi-"WE WILL KILL YOU BITCHES" stuff - and that's only one of many examples.

If you violate an NDA, it is a civil matter. (Unless something significant has changed without me knowing!) That's completely separate from the government embarking on a criminal prosecution over speech. I think it is important to make the distinction.

The right view is, if you want to put it simplistically like this:

Progressives: Elon doesn't care about free speech, he cares about limiting the speech of progressives in favor of the extreme right

Also progressives: Free speech should have limits to protect minorities from aggressors

Nothing at all inconsistent about these two positions, regardless of whether you think that either one is a good idea, or even true.

I see it a bit differently. Progressives tend to believe speech can have limits, and generally support private citizens and companies enforcing it through shame etc.

Elon touts being a free speech absolutist, but limits speech on his platform in a … whimsical … manner.

>Pick a lane.

No, a good society should not pick lanes, but cherries.