The Free Speech Dilemma

As a proponent of the freedom of expression, there is nothing I would hate more than seeing our ability to talk and joke being reduced. Hell, I just even wrote about that yesterday as well.

That being said, if we do want to succeed in preserving our rights in this era of increasing censorship we must know what we're doing to not look like amateurs and lose right out of the gate.

You see, many people believe that speech should have no limits, which inevitably leads to some questions:

What happens in defamation cases for example?

If somebody claims something that isn’t true and damages the reputation for a brand or an individual, shouldn’t there be consequences?

Especially in today’s environment where media personnel are seeking clicks more than ever.

In a bat of an eye, you’ll find sport journalists claiming that such and such athletes are using steroids. You’ll find war journalists creating enemies left and right and political opponents accusing each other of every single atrocity under the sun.

And they’ll be getting away with it.

Here’s another dilemma: What happens to scams?

Should we remove all penalties for deceitful conduct and criminal acts that were committed via speech?

Can you imagine if Snake oil makes a return and starts battling for the number 1 seller position in Amazon?

One can’t help but question the wisdom in letting scammers just lie with impunity and get away with it each time.

How about threats? Would that count under the Free-speech umbrella?

Personally, I think that free speech should be reserved to the freedom of expression, everyone is free to express themselves as they please, though without spilling to other areas.

One thing seems clear, this is no small maze to navigate.

Does your free speech end when you aggress against another person, like for example plagiarizing their work? Or does that count like intellectual property?

And if so, what if this spills to other areas of life?

For example, everyone has freedom of movement, but when you move your fist against somebody else’s face… That’s no longer freedom of movement, right?

That would count like aggressing against a person in a non-voluntary manner, would it not?

I don’t know, it’s a subject too complex for me to form a clear cut opinion, but how about you?

What do you think?

Image Sources: 1 - 2 - 3