Free speech online: solving thorny issues together

Joe Q wrote on September 18, 2017 at 3:30 pm:

As much as I despise hate speech, I can only be a patron and advocate of free speech. Hate speech is senseless, illogical, and destructive – nevertheless, hate is a right and can serve a purpose. When an opinion has no evidence or logic to support it and is very negative of a group of people, then it is hate speech. That purpose that hate speech can sometimes and unfortunately serve, is a reminder that haters are wrong – their statements false, and their ideologies invalid. Hate speech must also be allowed to exist simply because of the concept of empathy: to walk in one’s shoes. For any of those who are reading this, please take a moment to recognize what you feel strongly for and what you would advocate for given the chance. Now imagine that a large group of people – an organization – a government – a corporation – were to censor your opinions. Whether that censorship was complete or minor, it was an attack on your most cherished beliefs. The feelings that come from this are similar to those that hate speech can create. It is the feeling of being in the way or being the target of something powerful. However, there is another option besides fight or flight: freedom – freedom of speech. Discourse, advocacy, and compromise are the solutions. It is, has always been, and will be difficult, but peace through understanding and communication will prevail over fear and fighting. If we can dedicate ourselves to the task of simply listening, thinking, and speaking – tasks that we already do every day – we can build a better world and a better internet – without fighting or oppression, but with peace and freedom! Together…

1. Martin wrote on September 19, 2017 at 8:41 am:

   What we really need are simple straightforward guidelines, not emotionally charged arguments that are pro or con. 5 suggestions is simple, more than that is complicated. My 5 suggested guidelines on free speech are as follows;

   1. It must be civil, respectful and not emotionally charged. Emotion is good, but not to the point of being threatening. Rule of thumb, if your veins are popping out of your neck, you are emotionally charged.
   2. Must be non threatening. Suggesting to inflict harm in free speech is being emotionally charged.
   3. Internet speech ought not to be different than face to face communication. If you are not willing to post it on your front lawn, then it ought not to be said or written.
   4. Free speech cannot be anonymous. Stand for what you believe in and stand behind your words.
   5. Should be devoid of fanaticism. If you won’t change your mind and can’t change the subject, you are a fanatic. This applies to life choices, being gay or not, pro abortion or not and all forms of religion. Not everyone will agree with you, get used to it. Move on.

   Five people all talking at the same time yelling above the din of each others voices is not free speech. It is uncivilized. See rule number 1.

   Two or more people having a friendly debate is free speech. (one person having a friendly debate maybe civil, but is crazy. Seek professional help)

   1. Marvin wrote on September 23, 2017 at 4:27 pm:

      Except for 2, those aren’t really guidelines for free speech, they are guidelines for civil speech. Free speech, by its nature, must accept uncivil speech.

      1. Ideally, it should be civil and respectful, but there is no “must” which is laying down unacceptable limits on free speech. Who is anyone to judge somebody’s else’s acceptable emotional level in regard to their speech? We might not like it but that’s tough. Walk away.
      2. To threaten harm is illegal so is not covered under free speech.
      3. Ideally, yes, but by saying “ought” and “must” you are making yourself or someone else an arbiter based on personal taste or morals. People are free to be hypocrites. Again, if you don’t like it, walk away.
      4. I disagree entirely. Anonymity is essential where speech is restricted by tyrants. Would you apply this standard where the penalty for criticizing rulers is death? Would you hold yourself up to it? I also think anonymous speech is a right even where it is free, and even if it the result of cowardice or hypocrisy.
      5. People have a right to be fanatical which should be protected while it isn’t inciting violence.

      People need to understand that to truly have freedom speech means having a lot of speech that they won’t like. They should either engage it their own speech or walk away. They should not try to set arbitrary rules to limit or shape it unless it’s on their own property.

      1. Marie W wrote on October 4, 2017 at 6:16 am:

         Marvin, you are only RIGHT! (guess I am a fanatic, as I used all caps there) Thanks for your voice of reason.

      2. Zephyr Milnes wrote on October 4, 2017 at 7:35 pm:

         Wooh, yep guys let’s put rules on free speech. sound a little bit ironic to you… THAT’S BECAUSE IT IS. free speech should not have any rules, except if you read my comment above I say that it should not hurt somebody. This is about the only rule that is good in my opinion, but even then it turns it into Almost-free but not free speech. AFBMF speech. I think people will always shout hate. there is not much we can do to stop that.

      3. Lurk wrote on October 5, 2017 at 12:37 am:

         I agree with what Marvin said

         1. Why should emotionally charged people not be allowed to post online, on their personal profiles?
         2. I agree threats and defamation should be deleted, but onl yposts containing those, not whole accounts.
         3. Internet speech can be same as face to face communication. I do agree that is you need to stand behind what you say and be prepared to defend it. If thats what you meant by “post it on your front lawn”.
         4. I can disagree more. Without being anonmyous you expose yourself to people who can harm you or people you love because of what you say or think. What you said is similar to saying to potential rape victims to not try to run away if attacked.
         5. Fanaticism is similar topic than 1. emotionally charged speech. Problem is who decides what fanaticism is. Who decides what “hate speech” is. Who decides what is allowed to be hated and what not?

         Example of this problem can be observed on twitter and facebook, where if you post anything hateful against Islam or PoC you get suspended. While people posting hateful things about “whiteness”, Trump voters or “patriarchy” are allowed to spew their hatred. Its clearly that double standard formed and platforms changed into ideological echo chambers where hate is allowed if its right kind of hate, and wrongthink is punished if its against popular narrative.

   2. Michael wrote on October 3, 2017 at 2:53 am:

      The hypocrisy shown by some on here is laughable. The bottom line is that free speech is just that. It’s not about allowing those you disagree with a voice just so that you can allow them to show how wrong they are in your world view. People have grievances and opinions you don’t share so then those views immediately become ‘hate speech’, while yours are conveniently portrayed as intelligent, rational and right. But that’s only your own personal view, derived from the way you see the world. Free speech means just that. It should never be about what people think of as the right or wrong way to think. It also means you can disagree with a view you don’t agree with, but taking moral high ground and presenting your view as the right one and those you disagree with are wrong is just plain arrogant. People are entitled to an opinion. Disagree with each other by all means, but freedom of speech should also mean freedom of thought also. It doesn’t matter how abhorrent you find someone’s views because they might feel just the same about yours. Then the argument comes back to taking the moral high ground, and again that will be based on your own world view. Just state an opinion through the concept of free speech. It’s not about browbeating the other side into submission by trying to be morally superior.

      1. Tyson wrote on October 4, 2017 at 12:23 am:

         Free speech is not free if: Labels can be invented to subjectively categorize what speech is acceptable, e.g. “hate speech”.

         Free speech is not free if: Authorities get to decide what is true, labeling everything else “fake news”.

         Free speech is not intended to protect speech you like.

         There are only very narrow exceptions to free speech, like speech that will cause immediate physical harm to another person. The mistake people are making these days is equating physical harm with emotional harm. Your emotions are not something anyone can protect. Only you can control the impact words have on you. The state is not obligated to protect your emotions. Asking them to do so is a catastrophic slippery slope that will lead to the end of free speech as we know it.

         As far as “the Internet” being owned and operated by private businesses goes… That argument leads to universal censorship. No government is going to set up “free speech” zones on the Internet to host content that’s in opposition to the mainstream of “acceptable speech”.

      2. Robert wrote on October 4, 2017 at 6:03 am:

         I agree with Micheal 100 % .

      3. Dani wrote on October 4, 2017 at 8:18 am:

         The most complete comment I found and agree. Anyways, I knew they would do that and put a gag in the people in the internet too. You see the partiality and the true intentions when they use one unique case exemplify the devil and the wrong for them “White supremacist outlet The Daily Stormer got kicked offline after the protests in Charlottesville”, why they don’t put that the ISIS uses services such as YouTube and LiveLeak (to spread videos of beheadings and destruction of antiquities), Twitter (to disseminate messages and threatening images) and SoundCloud (to promote group leader audio messages) as a example too. Why together on that drawing trying show people from every kind and religion “the diversity” they don’t put someone with a cross showing Christians too? Oh noo, Christians are the devil and the prejudiced, from them all the white supremacist and homophobia. total hypocrisy

2. tedwilson wrote on September 19, 2017 at 9:30 am:

   Prohibition dose not work.

   1. thistle bottom wrote on September 21, 2017 at 9:12 pm:

      Argue that the people making billions off of it….

3. pipi wrote on September 21, 2017 at 2:07 pm:

   But who gets to define what hate speech is?

   Giving power to ban/censor people means giving power to ban/censor people for whatever reason . All you have to do is expand the definition of hate speech.

   For example I saw the word niggers. I just said it. Is that hate speech? What if I say Mozilla sucks. Is that hate speech? What if i say Islam religion sucks (notice I did not say muslims suck) is that hate speech? What if I say the government sucks. Is that hape speech? All these refer to a group of people : blacks, mozilla corporation staff, muslims, government instiution. However depending on your definition some may be hate speech some not. So is not really about being demeaning to a group of people. Can i say police sucks? Is that hate speech?

   Who decided what’s hate speech and what is not.

   Compelled speech is what nazis used. Compelled speech is what communists use. If you go that path you begin the authoritarian way.

   1. BashingInMinds wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:38 am:

      I’ve spent a great deal of time on Twitter attempting to reason with people on all sides of political issues who seem to have misunderstandings or refuse to diplomatically engage with those who disagree with them. I’ve seen many people censored from the platform for their beliefs, opinions, or experiences, rather than for any form of hate speech.

      While I generally understand and agree with the point that free speech is a right that frees us from oppression, and that forcing private companies to abide by it would be a similar form of tyrrany (who decides what is ‘free’? Would you allow people to post hate or vile content on a children’s forum?), we now have a terrible situation where our own government seems to be ‘outsourcing’ its censorship to private companies.

      There’s significant evidence to suggest that these private corporations often act under pressure from, or in concert with, political individuals who wish for a certain agenda or ‘narrative’ to be created. This essentially undermines the free discourse people are attempting to hold on these platforms, and makes some opinions appear disproportionately widely-held. Likewise, private companies will frequently censor those who hold minority opinions for profit.

      On the government side, firmer controls and investigations into government collusion with media and social platforms, corruption crackdowns, are needed. But as for the second issue, brought up in this podcast… that’s not so straightforward to deal with. Perhaps what could be ideal is a ‘free speech’ indicator of some sort; essentially like food labeling, websites could declare themselves free-speech zones, and would then be legally obliged to not censor legal speech (nothing to do with threats of violence and the like).

      In essence this would make being a free-speech zone an opt-in proposal, but once opted in, a company could not simply decide to change its terms and start discriminating against its users. I suspect users would flock to protected speech areas. Equally important would be ensuring neutrality of function; simply leaving content on the platform is a small matter if you bury it so no one can find that content with your search functions. Free speech websites would need to have guaranteed neutrality of function, so that sorting algorithms and the like do not take into account the favorability of opinions being sorted through.

      That’s my proposed solution to this issue. I’d love to get some feedback on that.

      1. Don Holmes wrote on October 4, 2017 at 5:58 am:

         I like that idea

   2. Meryl wrote on October 3, 2017 at 8:15 am:

      The only people who have a hard time identifying hate speech are people who are arguing about it in bad faith. It’s not hard. Also, communists =/= nazis.

   3. dan wrote on October 4, 2017 at 12:43 am:

      absolutely correct, pipi. however, the left will be/are being the useful idiots in their own, and our own, authoritarian demise.

4. tzu wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:15 pm:

   Free speech is a natural right, every man has the right to voice their opinion as each is equal before the law. No government, corporation, religion or individual can take that right from you but it is up to the people to be on the watch and fight for it. If “hate speech” is regulated, who do you think will be writing the regulations? It’s going to be the powers that be, not you. Always remember that “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Keep an eye on what group of people is always pushing for these laws.

5. Maggoo0 wrote on October 4, 2017 at 11:22 am:

   I agree with Joe in so much as discussion ,dialogue and debate is a large piece of the infrastructure necessary for freedom of speech to flourish. There is so little evident in our media since it is owned and run by groups with various other agendas that take precedence over the health and advancement of our society.
   Maggoo0

Dan wrote on September 19, 2017 at 7:04 am:

Freedom of speech is the bastion of thought. Everything we take for granted today was something authoritarians would have censored in the past. And the alternative to free speech is violence. I deplore any and all attempts to hinder freedom speech. There is an argument to be made that it shouldn’t be illegal for private comapnies to allow or publish speech with which they disagree. But that case is rarely made when it comes to companies which disagree with the mainstream opinion on these issues; for example punishing religious cake makers for not wanting to make a pro gay marriage cake. You can have it both ways with that kind of argument.

Furthermore, regardless of what should be illegal, there is the moral case to be made that companies ought to support something as vital as freedom of speech irrespective of legality. This is of further import given that censorous and malevolent companies such as google have such a share of the internet use that they’re social gatekeepers to knowledge. And they abuse this position by demonitising people they disagree with on youtube and concocting algorythims to draw people away from opinions they don’t like. I hope that mozilla isn’t on the same path.

Irrespective of the instrumentalist arguments in favour of free speech (the fact it’s lead to the best societies in the world, the fact that censors would never want to live countries which lack the free speech they’re so keen to erode), there’s the more fundemental argument that i do not trust these corporations and politically correct politicians to outsource the use my mind and my ideas, and to tell me what i am and not allowed to beleive, what is and is not “hate speech” (why would i want someone i dont trust to make that decision for me??), when i have a perfectly functional mind of my own thank you? I will not be at the social behest of the type of scum who feel that it is their moral right, purely in terms of the fact they happen to be a large company, to be the moral arbiters of allowable and unallowable opinions. You think that you’re current opinions are correct and will never face a legitimate challenge? You’re a terrifying authoritarian and precisely the kind of bigot freedom of speech works so well to combat against. Don’t tell me what to do. I have no respect for your historical ignorance and moral arrogance.

1. Martin wrote on September 20, 2017 at 8:54 am:

   I agree with your comment that free speech is a right. Everyone is free to express themselves and suffer the consequences if there are any. People in Turkey express free speech against the government and either thrown in prison and/or shot. Some are quite ready to be martyrs. I think the point here is about self governance. A website may chose to insist on guidelines, same goes with companies, institutions etc. Guidelines are a good way of setting a precedence. Guidelines are very good way establishing what is acceptable to a website and what is not. Preventing members of ISIS express “free speech” in the form of threats against all humanity should probably be censored.

   1. Joe Blow wrote on September 20, 2017 at 11:42 am:

      But who decides what guidelines to use to determine what is acceptable for all to express? To censor 1 is to censor all.

tedwilson wrote on September 19, 2017 at 9:19 am:

Cenceorship is not how you end hate.

Jim crow laws are a form of censorship, they censored the black out.

Removal of information and the stifling of knowledge is not how you defeat this.

Should we censor Nazi’s out of history because they were bigoted? They hurt my precious little feeling…of course not. How else do we as a society learn from our mistakes if the mistakes are censored?

Benjamin McLean wrote on September 19, 2017 at 3:00 pm:

I noticed something about your podcast: Nobody on it was anywhere even slightly right-of-center on the political spectrum. This reflects the kind of world you at Mozilla want to have, where the only conversation is between the moderate Left and the hard Left. Anyone who, like Brendan Eich, has any ideas different from yours doesn’t get to speak. This isn’t about Nazis. This is about everyone who disagrees with you.

1. Nancy Rosner wrote on October 3, 2017 at 8:16 am:

   I have been reading many of the comments, and yours comes closest to what I am thinking. I guess I am a center-right person, and it seems to me that people who say they want to stop hate speech are usually on the left. They can say the most vile, disgusting things about President Trump and his family, and the government, but think it’s their right to do so. Yet they don’t want to allow conservatives and right-wing groups their freedom of speech. Look what’s happening on college campuses. Hate works both ways, that’s why freedom of speech is so hard to regulate. I just try to listen to reasonable thinking, and to not read hate speech on either side. I have been hiding alot of posts on Facebook because of this!

Norbert Papali wrote on September 23, 2017 at 12:36 pm:

Preaching or practicing hatred in any form in not acceptable in a civilized world. Why are Muslims disliked and hated by majority of the people around the world? Because their religion preaches violence against people of other faiths. Not only that if they convert to any other faith they are to be killed. Is this free speech? Or it it preaching violence? Using the internet to promote ones ideology may be a private matter, however if it is done in public, would it be tolerated? I think not. Then why preach violence in the privacy of the internet? Promoting violence via the internet brings in more violence. ISIS is a good example). So I strongly believe, hatred and violence should not be entertained or supported on the internet. WE should do everything we can not only to prevent it but also to stop it.

1. Judess69er wrote on September 26, 2017 at 4:48 am:

   @Norbert Papali

   “Preaching or practicing hatred in any form in not acceptable in a civilized world.”

   any form of religion can be considered Preaching or Practicing hatred, in religions there is a set of Rules/Commandments that are always Bias towards 1 single group of people and exclude anyone who doesn’t conform to their ways.

   tho then any form of government can be considered as Preaching or Practicing hatred, since there is a set of Rules/Laws that are always Bias towards 1 single group of people and exclude anyone who doesn’t conform to their ways.

   in truth Anarchy is the only True form of a non-discriminating world.

JJPrzybylski wrote on September 25, 2017 at 7:20 pm:

The government already intervenes in the private sector with its “Civil Rights Laws”. It forbids discrimination based on color, race, sex, creed and more. In this way, it limits freedom for what it asserts is the greater-good. Furthermore, when push comes to shove, the government has a monopoly on physical coercion. Think Army, National Guard, Police etc.

Well, people expect that there will be necessary limits to Liberal Democracy. Even if it’s based on individual rights. But if free-speech is strictly limited by the commercial players on the internet? Then freedom is twice degraded. First by the Government. Second by the corporations. Then certain groups will have credibility when saying that Liberal Democracy has run its course, and is nothing but a brand. Like a very nice old name for a system that has evolved into a duopoly. The government provides muscle and the corporations provide social consensus mixed with pop entertainment, financing, commodities and techno-utilities.

You either have free speech and an authentic Liberal Democracy, or you don’t. Even people who don’t feel represented will be patriotic as long as they have a voice. But if you take away their voice? They’ll be done. Finished. They’ll be thinking very hard about secession, and creating their own exclusive living space.

Is this where we’re headed?

Your Name wrote on September 26, 2017 at 9:13 am:

Free speech online is a farce. Online platforms are owned privately, there is no “right” to free speech in a “privately owned domain”. Google has proved that, twitter has proved that, and facebook has proved that. You may agree with what those companies have done thus far, but if you allow them to continue it will only get worse and maybe one day you will be the one it happens to. If you want more freedom online, push to have large corporations like google and facebook broken. Especially google, you may think it’s nonsense, but google has content, or owns content on the majority of domains (there tentacles reach far).

1. David Kneusel wrote on October 2, 2017 at 9:48 pm:

   It’s easy to set up forums outside those platforms, there are millions of them.

   Don’t be so pessimistic 🙂

2. Gary wrote on October 3, 2017 at 3:50 am:

   “Free speech online is a farce” and yet you have posted your comments. Though I do agree that in all areas of society, private corporations that become too powerful threaten the principles of democracy especially private interests can dominate the political arenas, more than the citizens of a country. Thus governments and regulatory bodies should maintain (or restore) a diversity of internet based companies that accurately reflects the diversity of people in life. Difficult as these billion dollar private corporations are not going to diversify without some regulatory body incentivising them to do so.

Robby Smith wrote on October 2, 2017 at 3:15 pm:

I’m not sure what this discussion is about. Is online freedom of speech in jeopardy?

Vic Bradford wrote on October 2, 2017 at 3:38 pm:

Thanks for bringing this issue up in another public forum, by an organization with credibility (at least for now).

Alas, this as a problem without a likely solution.
We may not even have an idea of the problem(s), let alone the solutions. Mozilla and others could contribute to a better understanding by examining the problem(s): what is “constructive” use of free speech (or for that matter what is free speech), what is “abuse,” who does the present system benefit (financially and otherwise), hard data on how much abuse exists, who is involved in undermining free speech (both in limiting it and in abusing it), what are the responsibilities for those who use the web, what alternatives to the current internet might exist, could national or non-national entities exploit it and if so how, what are insurmountable limits that currently exist, etc. We don’t really seem to have much data on some important issues here and — here’s a catch — many people might consider “data mining” to find the answers to constitute censorship or spying. Perhaps non-interested parties, such as university researchers, might want to step in here.
One suggestion, which would allow constructive free speech and provide some kind of “brake,” would be to require people to state their own names — not a “hide-behind” — whenever they post. However, this would be almost impossible to enforce, and it might stifle creative ideas from people with low self-esteem who might consider their ideas unworthy of a wider audience. Nevertheless, it may be better to have a civil internet than one which is anonymous but open to extensive abuse.
Another suggestion would be to have a consortium of respected experts examine the issues.
Some variation on this idea, by people with more creativity and “net smarts” than I have, may be worth considering.

Good luck and I hope Mozilla will let us know some insights into this forum.

Paddy V wrote on October 2, 2017 at 4:11 pm:

Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech then the denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day but the denial of free speech enslaves the freedom of the people and entombs the hope of the race.

Rafael wrote on October 2, 2017 at 6:17 pm:

Yes, it should be regulated on very special situations, lets say in a cancer support forum to avoid evil people from making jokes or discriminating… but on more “free” websites, people should be able to give their opinions on religious, political… matters without their comments being deleted just because they disagree. Most of this could be avoided if we tought people to be more tolerant to others.

Bob12321 wrote on October 2, 2017 at 6:31 pm:

From the Article: “The Daily Stormer is just one among many websites the white supremacist protesters used to recruit, organize, and in many ways, incite violence in Charlottesville.” Should this be a PROVEN to be TRUE and FACTUAL; They should be arrested and prosecuted for inciting RIOTS. U.S.Code 18 section @ 2101 See it HERE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101
It’s criminal, just as yelling “FIRE” in a theater when there isn’t one. These clowns SHOULD be listed as ” Home Grown Domestic Terrorists” plain and simple. It’s one thing to voice one’s opinion, but that opinion should never be forced or propagated to the masses when it has such evil intent.

Tom wrote on October 2, 2017 at 6:33 pm:

The current policy of just letting the websites regulate themselves is optimal. Please firefox don’t start spending resources going on a censorship tyrade. People who don’t like whatever website for allowing free speech or having positions they do not like should just stay away from those sites there are plenty of sites already with speech regulation integrated within them already.

Maria Ortiz wrote on October 2, 2017 at 6:54 pm:

Free speech does not mean cursing and using filthy language. It means you can criticize without getting into trouble. There is a freedom that says we can have freedom from filthy language and verbal abuse.

Maria Ortiz wrote on October 2, 2017 at 6:56 pm:

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one’s opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[2][3][4][5] The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.[6] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”[7] The idea of the “offense principle” is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[7] With the evolution of the digital age, application of the freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government’s Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavorable data from foreign countries.

The right to freedom of expression has been interpreted to include the right to take and publish photographs of strangers in public areas without their permission or knowledge.[8][9]

Contents

Vincent wrote on October 2, 2017 at 7:15 pm:

Like the Pink Floyd song ( Money keep your hands of my stack )

Anthony Morris wrote on October 2, 2017 at 7:33 pm:

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -Voltaire

The only case in which free speech should be regulated is the incitement of violence, threats, or other unlawful and harmful activities. Insults and the like should be left alone and ignored, and if clearly unreasonable, simply removed / banned; we, no matter what your opinions, political views, religion and the like represent do NOT want to worry of police coming to our houses / our internet access revoked over what we say online.

Keep the police in public, and the thought police in Nazi Germany, please.

Jodi wrote on October 2, 2017 at 8:27 pm:

Free speech should always be allowed so long as there are no direct threats in that speech. No one is ever forced to read anything online that they don’t like or want to hear. As soon as I see something I don’t like or I’m not interested in or I don’t agree with, I move on. It’s as simple as a click of a mouse.

Ray wrote on October 2, 2017 at 8:40 pm:

No matter how this “thorny” issue is construed, it’s borderline insane to think this will play out differently than any other “thorny” issue in the history of mankind. There will be, and already is, censure, human rights violations, and repression of the weak. Inasmuch a digital presence as a physical one.

It’s foolish to even think that any government, or even a coalition of governments, would agree to any common definition of “hateful” speech and then maintain that common definition for longer than it takes to write down the definition on a piece of paper.

Without a common definition of right and wrong, there can be no law which would be able to universally define what someone aught (or aught not) to say. Anything can be labeled hate speech, anything can be a trigger issue. While I disagree with the practice of labeling something “hate” speech, perhaps there’s an element to truth in this. Who’s to say that a negative statement about someone or something today; will not turn out to be a deadly statement in the midst of a riot later on down the road?

Arnold Plumb wrote on October 2, 2017 at 9:15 pm:

Corporations have an obligation to protect free speech and NOT block content by persons no matter how offensive. Criminal content can and should be isolated, filtered and forwarded to the appropriate authorities regardless of the sentiment of the media. Illegal is illegal. Immoral is not always illegal. The balance will always be tricky, but speech must not be filtered in an effort to suppress honest debate and even vehement disagreement.

Steve wrote on October 2, 2017 at 9:26 pm:

Free speech means protecting all speech, even if … no, especially if … it is offensive. Non-offensive speech needs no special protection – it is not opposed. But why should we protect speech which we find offensive? Because what is not offensive now may be considered so later and the other way around. Because those who make the rules change. When they do, the things you want to say may be considered offensive, and your voice silenced. Some may deny that gag laws would be misused. I would point to the abuses of Imminent Domain, the RICO statutes, and the Patriot Act in the U.S. Even with our Constitutional protections, our government must be watched vigilantly to ensure they do not obliterate our rights and freedoms.

“Hate Speech” can be like the old saying about good art – “I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.” Maybe most of us could agree that blatant racist speech is offensive. But people may define “hate speech” differently: opposing illegal immigration, being pro-choice or pro-life, or having strong opinions about LGBT-related legal issues or assisted suicide, to name a few current issues.

Banning speech only hides the problems. Having ideas out in the open allows them to be argued, discussed, disproved, or even accepted. Suppressing speech does not end issues. It exacerbates them. It results in people not saying what they think and then it explodes – sometimes in surprising election results, and sometimes in violence.

Free speech allows those with hateful views to expose themselves. This is useful.

As some have pointed out, the internet is a mesh of companies that have their own rules and regulations. However, if they start to censor their users, they will soon be required to do so. Once required to censor, they will be punished if they don’t do it right. In other words, they will become highly regulated by whomever controls the regulating agencies. That may someday be someone who believes you should not have freedom of expression.

I would rather have the choice of listening to or ignoring speech I consider offensive than have some anonymous group make that decision for me.

David Kneusel wrote on October 2, 2017 at 9:45 pm:

Speech online can not be regulated. Who has the authority to decide what is and isn’t allowed? What ideology, religion, or class would these global censors come from? How would they enforce their dictates across millions, sorry billions now, of devices and servers?

It’s the wrong question to ask. What Mozilla should be doing is helping to keep it impossible for anyone to do the above.

David Barr II wrote on October 2, 2017 at 10:13 pm:

Just like as above so below I say & believe in us American citizens being able to keep our rights so as amendment 1 freedom of speach should never be refrained to any one person cussing or not its still our first amendment the training that should be comprised for the citizen free of charge is that we all respect & understand that & if a person does not like what another person says then to exit engaugement of comunication with that person if you don’t like or that person will not explain themselves its simple & we all will not feel like our rite to amendment one will be infringed apon if a person truely understands their part in any conversation its simple they do not have to listen & that is still a right to silence easy peasy japa neesy ps I have had a pretty hard time at life here & there & I can cuss but no matter here on the internet or in public I have the rite to free speach Thank You. David ps I don’t see it any other way but free speach to be infringed apon .

Lifelong Left Winger wrote on October 2, 2017 at 10:33 pm:

Before the internet large companies owned the publication platform and the plumbing that made them accessible and they did, and still do, control our right to speak. The issue is nothing new. Just the internet.

If you go back and read the speech Barack Obama gave on June 18, 2015 after the shooting at Emanuel Church in Charleston, NC you will see that not once did he ever mention the KKK, neo-Nazis, or white supremacists.

After Charlottesville, VA when Donald Trump did not mention the KKK, neo-Nazis, or white supremacists in his speech there was a major stink that exists to this day.

When you force people to say things does that impinge on their free speech?

Sometimes things are just a matter of perspective.

I applaud the people that took down The Daily Stormer. I don’t applaud the people that have gone after Donald Trump.

And in my opinion taking the knee is totally patriotic.

Rhonda Dockery wrote on October 3, 2017 at 1:09 am:

I have prayerfully read this article. The problem with regulating speech is who would determine its potential to be “threatening” and whose viewpoint will be allowed to dominate? I believe as my forefathers that as long as there is no harm then one should be allowed to openly express their view. I fear that should this type repression occur then due to the liberal bent of the media only the liberal view will be allowed. That is wrong. No one should have the right to think for someone else! That is against our Constitution. We need to teach respect for the viewpoint of others and how to respectfully disagree but the internet needs to be an open forum of ideas. In other words, no one else has the right to choose my friends for me! On the other hand no one has the right to demean another viewpoint. We need to be teaching strength and respect over whining and fear! Courage with kindness makes a country strong. In the private sector companies may regulate speech with the disclaimer that the view expressed does not reflect the companies’ standards but allow the opposition. After all, the company may not always have the best answer!

Michael wrote on October 3, 2017 at 2:57 am:

Funnily enough it doesn’t seem that Firefox really believes in free speech either, which is why comments have to await moderation. It shouldn’t matter what the content is, only that people are free to say it. Once you put restrictions on it then it isn’t free speech. Free speech has no limits. If you think that it does then that’s like saying a slave can be free but only up to a point. Free means free or it means nothing at all.

Gary wrote on October 3, 2017 at 3:39 am:

Free speech within a public domain should not ( and is not in civilized society) the right of a individual to say anything. The foundation of free speech is freedom. Thus prejudice language goes against the ethics of free speech. Free speech is similar to democracy in that people are free to vote,unless they are deemed by society to be too young in order to effectively understand what they are voting for (children) or too ignorant ( White supremacist ). In the latter case the evidence (scientific > evolution > why people have different colour skin) can be used in order to try and educate the ignorant. Failing that, if their rhetoric is judged as harmful by civilized society it should be moderated and regulated with all our might.

CptSilva wrote on October 3, 2017 at 5:10 am:

Free Speech is important to everyone. If you feel like free speech is not a good thing, and you don’t believe in it then don’t say anything, and don’t read anything. I like free speech whether I like what the person is saying or not. That is what makes north america so great, or at least used to be great.
What I do notice from a lot of humans is they would rather me lie to them and tell them how much I like them. Well, I have a problem with lying that I do not like it. And I like to give my true thoughts on humans when they ask for it. Or if someone thinks they are entitled and do nothing to get that entitlement I like to confront them on how awful and greedy they are. If we can’t speak the truth about something/someone/whatever on how awful they are then how are they supposed to know, if they got trained that they are special, and could no wrong. They need a kick in the ass, and a taste of poverty to humble them down a tad. That is why not to many like to talk to me, they know I can see right through them, the dishonest folks that is. And trust me there are a lot out there. I met a lot in my walk of life.

Kaye wrote on October 3, 2017 at 5:11 am:

How can ‘free speech’ be ‘regulated’. By being regulated, it’s not ‘free’.
As you say in your first paragraph:

“I have the freedom to state any belief, however odious, so long as it doesn’t threaten anyone’s safety or impinge on anyone else’s freedom. Civil society arrived at this principle after several thousand years because it makes a whole lot more sense than killing each other whenever we disagree.”

If we begin to ‘regulate’, ‘free’ speech, then where do we draw the line? And who is an accepted authority to draw that line?

Someone else’s ‘hate’ or ‘disagreeable’ tone, may not be that way to someone else. And if you push it down, it will go underground. That has been demonstrated in anything that has been banned or made illegal – like the drugs business.

Just because something offends someone else, it is not right to ‘regulate’ it. A warning prior to any video or text content should be issued, so the person can make a decision whether to read or view.

The whole issue of adult ‘debate’ is dismantled when ‘free’ speech is ‘regulated’. If it is dealing with issues that are detrimental to someone else – like adults having sex with children who are not consenting then, of course, these people need to be reported to through the legal channels. But if it is something that someone says, and offends someone else’s ‘feelings’, rather than ‘physical’ body, then this is up to the person who is offended to simply be an adult about it and walk away. They have a choice. To listen, view or read – or not.

If the ‘offending party’ is not given an audience, then they won’t be able to rattle off the way they do. But if they are given an ‘argument’ – like someone else is offended by them and they publicly state that, then an audience grows from that.

The simple answer is – if a warning of content is given, the person has a choice. If they think it’s going to offend them, then they shouldn’t watch, read or listen to it, unless they are prepared to get their own ‘feelings’ out of the way and take in the content in order to educate themselves of the viewpoint that is being aired.

Some may consider this point of view offensive, but this is my view and, because of free speech, I am entitled to have it.

john doe wrote on October 3, 2017 at 5:18 am:

Hate speech is free speech. No matter how stupid or incendiary the hate speech is it is free speech. Now private company’s do have the right to limit what is posted on their platform. Is it right, no i don’t think so. But it is their right just as it is my right to spew antisemitic or anti-anything online.

Emanuel Faisca wrote on October 3, 2017 at 5:59 am:

In my opinion free speech should not be regulated. Even the most odious opinions are of use. They serve as indicators that there’s something terribly wrong with our society. What I’m saying is, regulation is not a definitive solution for a given problem. If we want to stop offensive comments and opinions, education is the way to go! I strongly believe that an evolution in education would greatly improve most of these issues and guide us towards a better community. An educated person understands beyond inflammatory and hateful comments and also expresses it self in a more civilized manner. And if enough people share an educated view one would surely expect better refined less hateful opinions.

Best Regards

Holly H wrote on October 3, 2017 at 6:09 am:

The tongue is the most powerful part of our bodies. It can build or tear down a person. Yes, “free speech” should be monitored on-line. God has given us all rights to choose, and if you choose to spread filth and hate, something in your heart is in need of healing. Life isn’t about ourselves. We are wicked people and do terrible things. For Example, I am disappointed by videos on YouTube, when on restricted mode, my 10 year old cannot watch funny things he enjoys without people adding cussing or other inappropriate things. I monitor what my children watch to protect them, and to teach them right from wrong. As adults we make and follow rules to protect for what is right. God is our heavenly father, he has given us an instruction book and” morally correct” instructions. Sin in any form destroys peoples lives. If you do not stand up for what is morally correct, and allow whatever… how can we makes laws against ANYTHING?? Who then is our judge? But as a Christian, I know the Bible says it will only get worse til the end of times.

1. Richard Wicks wrote on October 3, 2017 at 11:52 pm:

   Argh, this isn’t about GOD regulating speech – it’s about your government regulating speech.

   Who, exactly, is your God?

mruff wrote on October 3, 2017 at 6:42 am:

no it should not be regulated. the internet is for everyone , like a business it depends on where youre at. for example follow the rules they set on social media sites. other than that its up to parents etc to monitor their childrens activities. another example- if youre offended by nudists, DONT GO TO A NUDE BEACH!

White Vomit wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:00 am:

I didn’t read any of the above or listen to the audio, but I, having free speech, say :

Teach your children to be emotionally intelligent and treat others with kindness, and no one will get hurt.

Teach your children to be open minded and interested in new subjects, and no one will be judged.

Treat others with respect and maturity, and no anger will be expressed.

Oh, wait, it’s the human race we are talking about. We are all going to die by the hands of each other, while ruining the only planet sustainable for life. (:

Mark wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:11 am:

We either have free speech or don’t. Taking offense is a choice, by the person who takes it. And free speech regulations already prohibit what must be prohibited. Social morays change, what’s polite now could be regulated out of existence using the same rules, if passed now, that seek to merely eliminate “hate” speech.

Andrew Bouwhuis wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:23 am:

Yes, everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want online. Agency to act as one wants is divine.

cecil ram wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:32 am:

we need to preserve free speech

Don Scott wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:38 am:

The many comments about the circumstances at Charlottesville illustrate some of the problems of the first amendment. President Trump was fifty percent closer than all other opinions. He said that there were fine people on both sides. There were more than two sides, so he left out quite a few people. We don’t know that there were fine people on either of the many sides and neither does President Trump. We were told, repeatedly that one “side” comprised neo-Nazis, The Ku Klux Klan, and white supremacists, and these groups were to be considered “bad”. It is my understanding that the permission to gather in Charlottesville was granted to “white nationalists”. CNN decided that they AND Mr. Trump were “bad”. At least we knew that the group of people granted the permission to gather would actually be practicing the right to freedom of speech in an “in your face” type of way. They would also demonstrate their disagreement with the removal of a statue of General Robert E, Lee. There were some on CNN’s “bad” list who were only there to protest the removal of the statue. The people identified as “protesters” were only in Charlottesville to oppose free unacceptable speech. They had come for a fight, either vocally or physically, if necessary and allowed. We heard and saw on TV the speech that was anti semitic. It is not clear which “bad” group was involved but the numbers were many. One young man committed a non discriminatory murder. That was clearly “bad” and no one argues that fact. It is clear that there would have been no murder and likely no violence if all people had just tolerated the freedom of speech, even if hateful, and let the “free speakers” go away at the end of their permitted gathering. The violence was illegal even if free speech was not.

Don Scott

JB wrote on October 3, 2017 at 7:56 am:

“Regulated free speech” is an oxymoron. Do you want regulated speech or free speech? You can’t have both.

Linda Layton wrote on October 3, 2017 at 8:20 am:

The only way I can conceive of “regulating” is to clearly and boldly mark each item as verified fact, unverified statement or personal opinion. There would have to be fact checkers all along the way. So much we do and say is based on trust and that trust has been broken, especially in media. All one can do is warn people of the “type” of statement they are seeing/hearing and to have multiple people responsible independently checking. Accentuating the “forewarning” is a way of at least giving context to the statement. Lack of discernment, wisdom and thinking clearly are universal issues that plague us and all we can do is check each other to rebuild trust and good faith.

this_guy wrote on October 3, 2017 at 8:32 am:

‘The internet’. That’s so broad. The internet consists of…god knows how many sites, which are privately and publicly owned. The public pages tend not to have comments sections. It’d be interesting to see the comments people posted on whitehouse.gov–but you can’t comment. But, the majority are private anyway.

So, what does that matter? Private companies have much more control over what happens within their own business. A company can simply deem words offensive. If that doesn’t work, the undesirable speaker can be screwed over with algorithms by being excessively reported, muted, or suppressed in some other way. I imagine that if a company’s code is a ‘trade secret’ and any time someone writes the word ‘God’ or ‘Gun’, they could have the comment automatically deleted. It would be near impossible to prove, since it’s a trade secret. So even if you should or would, good luck.

On to the actual question: As dark as the depths of the internet can be from social media to sites where they sure like thanking obama, moderators generally do a pretty good job. The only issue that might need to be addressed is children just learning to navigate the world. School bullies can be rough and although it should be up to the parents–if children are going to an open forum–they need a little ‘structure’.

Jim the Slim wrote on October 3, 2017 at 8:54 am:

> The Daily Stormer is just one among many websites the white supremacist protesters used to recruit, organize, and in many ways, incite violence in Charlottesville.

You’ve absorbed the media’s sneaky narrative (because I nowhere saw it stated explicitly) that the alt-right initiated violence at Charlottesville. They defended, but I know for a fact that they wanted nothing more than to be left alone to make their speeches.

The media usually said something like “The alt-right protests at Charlottesville turned violent, and a girl was killed”. You’re left to infer that the violence was /caused/ by the alt-right. But it wasn’t so (except for James Fields hitting Heather).

Unless, of course, you’re doing the same thing, as in, “antifa really hated The Daily Stormer and got violent about it”.

Bill wrote on October 3, 2017 at 9:08 am:

Why is this even being considered? “Regulation” translates to the loss of liberty and the elimination of an individual’s God given rights. In today’s society, we’re now seeing a disingenuous pattern of disagreements being falsely labeled “Hate Speech,” when in many cases it’s a difference of opinion. Disturbingly, the line between genuine hate speech and conversational disagreement is a foggy line of opinion. This practice has become so serious, the individual being accused can now be fined or jailed if the opposition labels his/her opponent’s comment as such. Similarly, the loosely used, overly used term, “Racist!” has become a form of regulation. If an individual has no factual comeback to a point being made, the word “Racist!” is all too frequently used to halt further discussion. A first Amendment right to openly debate the issues comes to a screeching halt, while falsely tarnishing the opponant’s reputation. This is a dangerous precedent if continued, either in open debate or on social media. If a super entity can regulate thoughts and discussions on the Internet, then what’s to stop that same source of power from eliminating privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights all together? Where do we draw the line? Based on history, once regulations are established, it’s doubtful that line can be drawn. In far too many cases today, we’re already regulated to the point of fear for saying the wrong thing. Under the guys of Political Correctness, which has now over-reached it’s non-authorized boundaries, in the name of fairness, our first amendment rights are rapidly diminishing. Under the so-called authority of Political Correctness, and the powers of an ever growing powerful government of rules and regulations, we’re headed down a dangerous road these days. A road of control and elimination of individual liberties is what we’re facing as regulation continues. For every law our legislators pass, some group of American citizens looses more of their individual rights and freedoms. At what point do we say no more? Is “control” over our individual liberties really what we want for America? For our children’s sake, I certainly hope not! Once freedom has been governed out of existence, that’s the end of a free society.

Joseph McNeil wrote on October 3, 2017 at 9:15 am:

The web should not be a safe space. People need to be free to voice they’re own opinions and thoughts regardless of how large corporations view these people’s thoughts and ideas.

keath wrote on October 3, 2017 at 9:22 am:

Folks —-people have been threatened by “bullies”, haters “gangbangers” etc. for many years in all the world. A new channel for these people to dismiss, threaten or curse a differing point of view—is just the new frontier, “the internet”. NO limits to expression should be tolerated by all of us —with the exception & understanding of causing harm. We cannot permit this editorial sniping to progress with out it’s causing great harm to free society. Think about it ——-

U2LN wrote on October 3, 2017 at 9:26 am:

1. Web services *should* use the same standards as the US constitution when it comes to free speech.
2. They should, but it IS their right to manage their service the way they want.

A person wrote on October 3, 2017 at 9:32 am:

free speach boiiiiii

Larry wrote on October 3, 2017 at 9:36 am:

I agree we can’t allow any organization to filter speech. As a conservative, the thought of allowing Facebook or Google to determine what can or can not be published does not cause a sense of bliss. I am sure that those on the left feel the same regarding right leaning sites. So, what can we do? Certainly not censoring. But, we can have rules. No foul language, a notice that the information has not been fact checked. Google, Facebook and the like can’ be allowed to become the “Thought Police.”

Tim wrote on October 3, 2017 at 10:02 am:

My experience of the proponents for free speech so far has been almost exclusively people who want to use freedom of speech as an excuse to make comments that they know full well to be offensive and potentially harmful to a person or group of people. When called out, these people often claim that Freedom of Speech gives them the right to purposefully offend someone. I find this topic highly emotive and controversial, but my view is that when a person makes a statement with the primary intention of causing offence or harm to another person, their right of freedom of speech is surpassed by the recipient’s right not to be subjected to such harmful statements. I don’t have a problem with statements causing offence if their primary purpose was to make a constructive point or argument, but even in that case I think we all have a duty to be respectful of one another and be mindful as to whether our point is likely to cause offence, and whether it is justified in that case.

Amara wrote on October 3, 2017 at 10:20 am:

People tend to interact with others who are on a similar level, people who are communicating at a limited intellectual level, may express their feelings in a way that seems offensive to a person who commands a less limited awareness, but that does not necessarily invalidate their opinion. Exposure to debate involving different levels can benefit all those who seek deeper understanding, and those who are able to express themselves more fully, can be wayshowers to those who can learn. So there are benefits.
Companies can, and do, promote forums with guidelines, which, in my opinion, should not be used for censorship by the company, but provide a broad framework of expectations for users. ie. I do not wish to be exposed to foul language, so I would not stay with a forum which allowed that to dominate exchanges. Whilst I agree with the right to free speech, I also believe I have the right not to be exposed to foul language etc. In the real world, there are people we choose not to associate with, and it would be a natural extension of that choice if the internet forums were policed by the users of the forum. So, if a forum with stated guidelines, also had feedback/report buttons on every comment, all users would have the ability to monitor all content, and a system for escalating action, leading up to eventual blocking by the forum monitors, would be peer censorship, rather than corporate censorship, and is probably closest to how we respond in real life. If someone makes a post which receives negative reports, They could be invited to rectify the the post, which would encourage them to find more acceptable ways to express what they feel is a valid opinion. This opens them to the possibility of reflecting on their opinion, which may be a new experience, and could open their mind a little.

FREEDOM FOR BIAFRA! wrote on October 3, 2017 at 10:22 am:

“INTERNET” is a medium of communication and business.
Is sad that today many has turned it into bad act such as stealing, inciting violence, unleashing terror act. I have been using firefox web browser since 2007, i liked the service offered and the speed of the updates.
Well this has nothing to do with speech and restrictions of speech, since the browser is an application meant for swift internet surfing for both pro and amateur in the internet world.
My sincere opinion, is that the internet should focus on restraining attacks and phishing rather than focus on freedom of speech.

So said me. The up coming blogger from BIAFRA LAND.

PixiePossum wrote on October 3, 2017 at 10:35 am:

“Should free speech be regulated?” It boggles the mind what an asinine question this is. If it is regulated then IT ISN’T FREE SPEECH! If free speech offends you, feel free NOT TO LISTEN! Pull up your big kid panties & get over it.

Bill wrote on October 3, 2017 at 10:57 am:

Since social media platforms are managed in private space, they should be allowed to censor any kind of speech they wish. Forcing privately managed spaces to allow free speech could lead to the government forcing this on brick-and-mortar institutions, which is totalitarianism, and is clearly the goal of the constellation of groups generally assigned the label ‘Antifa’.

The right to free association is critical to a free society, and breaking the wall between private and public spaces is the first step to dictatorship and ruin. Keeping this division clear and impregnable is of the utmost importance to promote individual liberty.

The first step is to dismantle the illusion that online social media spaces are public. Facebook, Twitter, (Mozilla) et. al. should institute home screen disclaimers that state thier particular political/social bent, and that users may be censored at the discretion of staff. In this manner individuals can choose to accept to use the platform, or find another vendor that offers the same service without the politics or forced advocacy incurred by using the former.

This approach is what should be happening with the NFL “take a knee” protests. Team owners should feel free to fire anyone they want for any behavior they deem unacceptable. They pay to rent the facility, pay to broadcast the game, pay vendors to supply refreshments, pay the players. This is also not a free speech issue. The players can all go stand on the public sidewalk outside the stadium and kneel as much as they want, yell slogans or dogma, hold up signs, hand out CD’s, or whatever they want. That is a true exercise of free speech, and should be protected. Forcing private businesses to accomodate one’s personal advocacy in their private commercial space is, however, totalitarian. JMHO.

Golovkin wrote on October 3, 2017 at 11:11 am:

I do not think freedom of speech exists on the mainstream internet, everything and everyone that slightly makes feel people uncomfortable can get removed just based on people’s complains without being reviewed.

This is just a plea for censorship, a censoring based on ambiguous terms and biased towards political views.

Mike wrote on October 3, 2017 at 11:37 am:

Free speech should only be regulated in a clueless, lost-in-space, liberal world..

Jonn Cousland wrote on October 3, 2017 at 8:52 pm:

My problem is simple, regulate all you want but do some with consistency. Your bias is already demonstrated on this post by stating an example including only white supremacists. ISIS, BLM and other groups posts things from white children getting hanged to killing cops on the street. Those websites and posts are still online without a shred of criticism. Your failure to mention other “dangerous” speech group already defeat your point.

The way it will go will that only certain hate speech will be banned and others will stay up. Who will decide what is hate speech or not? I don’t like Nazis, I don’t like Black Supremacists, I don’t like Extremist Muslims but we have to defend their free speech in order to guarantee free speech for everyone. And if is such a bad ideology, which it is, why silent and confine it to the Dark Web? The best way to defeat an ideology is bring it to the light and destroy it with arguments where everyone can see. So what if a bunch of supremacists have their glorified swasticas or black power pictures on their profile? So what if they spew hatred towards people just because the color of their skin? You know what, they will continue to be what they are, a minority that we can laugh at.

We, the majority, are able to identify “hate speech, bad speech, stupid speech” on our own. That way you don’t even have to worry about censorship, society will ostracize the bad apples. Or, if by all means you will apply the ban hammer on groups because their speech, do it equally for all groups. Single out white supremacists without mentioning the others will work for a short amount of time with the sheep but it might end up, as we seem in many history cases, fueling the very thing you want to erase. Resentment is a powerful feeling.

Paul Patton wrote on October 3, 2017 at 9:33 pm:

The fact that our right to free speech only applies in our relationship to the government, and not to privately owned and controlled spaces is something that I find troubling. Although I find white supremacism abhorrent, I have visited the Daily Stormer website on several occasions, and found it a useful window into that culture. A genuine supporter of free speech will defend the free speech rights of people they profoundly disagree with. In this sense, I believe it was inappropriate to shut down The Daily Stormer. If private businesses can shut down websites for ideological reasons, will they only ever shut down racist sites? Or will their censoriousness eventually creep in to other matters, such as, for example, wealth inequality and the enormous wealth controlled by private businesses. Anti-racists can better oppose sites like the Daily Stormer by expressing anti-racist views on-line and supporting free speech rather than by seeking censorship of some ill-specified category of ‘hate speech’.

SMH….What!!!! wrote on October 3, 2017 at 10:06 pm:

Turn the machine off. Can not anguish over what you do not see. Your freedom of speech is showing……

joe walker wrote on October 4, 2017 at 1:28 am:

the argument that free speech should be moderated is absurd, without un-moderated free speech, we would not have had ANY of the civil rights movements, ie sylvia panchurst, malcolm x, and martin Luther king all offended people with their ideas and led to a better world, the idea that speech should be banned as it causes offense is pure crazy, also do people calling for offensive speech be banned remember the Spanish inquisition? freedom of speech is why the catholic church reformed as their ideas and were challenged. no one person, religion or ideology should be above criticism, and even if the views are backward, racist, or offensive to someone or a culture, it is our right to challenge them in free and open debate. censoring speech is not only backwards it is an Orwellian nightmare, to any one trying to ban free speech in whatever form, thanks for taking us back to the dark ages. wake up and evolve and debate. offensive speech comes under the same banner as free speech, to argue against this is absurd, if you don’t want to hear certain language then dont listen, its your right just as it is intrinsic to western society to be able to say what you believe.

1. Tery wrote on October 5, 2017 at 3:27 am:

   It’s not about banning freedom of speech … it’s understanding what it entails. Society to an extent is self regulating, the internet is not due to anonimity of identity and age. It’s missing that crucial factor that premotes restraint in real life.

Rod Parker wrote on October 4, 2017 at 2:05 am:

The fact of the matter is that even in a democracy, all speech is not free. Even in America there are certain things that you cannot do such as shouting fire in a theater when this is none or inciting a riot. The problem today is two fold. Anonymity without accountability, and wide scale ignorance as to how technology spreads ideas that threaten our very existence. In other words, the philosophy, psychology and legal frame works have not kept up with the technology. With that in mind, we should always keep in mind that every single form of technology which man has created for good has ultimately been weaponized. For example the same knowledge behind medicine for cures is also the knowledge behind biological warfare. The bike became the car which became the jeep and the tank. Our desire to fly was ultimately used for the purpose of dropping bombs from the sky. The WWW is no different, computer programming became computer hacking and data manipulation. It fundamentally goes back to Hobbes Leviathan. The problem is the nature of man in that he is at war with himself and his fellow man, always seeking to dominate the other. The WWW is just another tool of self destruction. So regulate away, it won’t matter. We will just find another way to hate and kill each other.

Godfrey L. Kerr wrote on October 4, 2017 at 3:06 am:

There are a wide variety of opinions offered here and that is my understanding of the freedom of speech and while some are a little excited others are presented as comparatively sober statements.
The concept of “Freedom of Speech” is an ideal and will always be subject to the moral and emotional point of view of the individual. Anyone can make a statement which is technically correct but offensive to one degree or another to someone else.
That is the reality of living on planet Earth which also has a number of challenges other than those posed by other humans.
Even the suggestion that anything is suitable fare if it enhances or improves life for someone without causing harm to anyone or anything else will almost certainly attract criticism from someone.
I can think of a few possible comments regarding that but will leave the fertile mind of the reader to explore the possibilities.
I have no quick fix magic wand to persuade everyone to think as I do but we all enjoy a freedom that did not exist 40 years ago by the fact that if we are reading this we are using one of the most beneficial services mankind has ever had at their disposal!
Is there any possibility that we could at least respect the incredible value this offers us by not jeopardising the continued service with disrespectful content or statements that might give cause for anyone to discontinue our use of the wonderful Internet.

Mike Langley wrote on October 4, 2017 at 3:53 am:

Free speach is still absolutly imperative.
It should however not be anonymous.
I believe the time has come for pseudonyms to be linked to digital IDs so that in say 3 clicks you can discover a ‘true’ identity.
This is a small price to pay for freedom and would stop trolling, encouraging more reasoned debate. Your phone company, search engine and credit card supplier already know all about you. Think of the fraud it would stop !!
Imagine the web as a force for good rather than a playground for the pervs, foul and dangerous.

Joseph wrote on October 4, 2017 at 4:17 am:

Unelected officials (in this case, private businesses who are beholden to nothing but the dollar) having ungranted authority over whether or not people have a right to express an idea is antithetical to the very concepts of western civilization.

Maris Zadinans wrote on October 4, 2017 at 4:33 am:

Free speech is free speech! I will fight to my death to let it exist!

john wrote on October 4, 2017 at 5:06 am:

The golden rule to follow is never speak about someone or say somthing to them online any differently than you would to their faces, if you follow that rule, youll never go far wrong in my experience

Dale Oakley wrote on October 4, 2017 at 5:31 am:

Technically, free speech is free as long as it is within the legal lines but I think what we describe as free speech can be dangerous too. Our world has changed now and why stir up people who are mentally unstable and causes someone to be killed due to free speech but it was a hateful speech. I am an older person and I miss the politeness that was fairly common before the Viet Nam War. I think we can accomplish so much more good by being polite even if one is being critical of another. When writing to a stranger on the Internet, we don’t know what that person has been going through and even his mental stability. As the old saying goes, honey goes alot further than lemon.

Tim Wakeford wrote on October 4, 2017 at 5:52 am:

THe 1st amendment is an enumerated Right, the 1st one on the Bill of Rights.
Don’t violate it or contribute to Washingtons mission-creep of infringing not just the 1st Amendment, but ANY of them or we will all lose them if we continue down this path.
Defend your Rights learn to filter information to your own goals and ends.

Tena wrote on October 4, 2017 at 6:42 am:

Our freedom of speech is threatened more every day and unfortunately there is no answer for how to prevent hate. My question on this topic is WHO or WHAT will determine what is, or is not, allowed. All human beings have their opinion and there will always be others who will disagree with them. That said, any AI used to make the decision of what is or is not allowed is programmed by a human being – and that programmer has opinions on right and wrong. There is no way to stop hate, discrimination, or evil. There will always be people we disagree with and will flinch at when we read their “comments” or “speech”. But that does not give us, or anyone else, the right to stop them from speaking their opinions. Right and wrong is obvious to me, in my mind, but that does not make it so in another person’s opinion. That being said, once again, WHO or WHAT can determine right or wrong? There is no way this can be controlled without infringing on someone’s rights.

Rob Caluori wrote on October 4, 2017 at 7:00 am:

Regulated speech is not free speech!

The Internet, arguably the last free society on Earth, needs to stay as such!

Government needs to keep their hands off. Figure out how to solve real crime before you start coming after my right to express my views. If we let them regulate the Internet then the voice of the few will be drowned out by the shouts of the many. Its a mob mentality.

I love all my Constitutional rights, but the first one is the gateway to the rest. Compromise that and the rest are as good as lost. After all, if you can’t speak up for your freedom, what’s to stop them from taking it away!

Will wrote on October 4, 2017 at 7:15 am:

I work online and often use the internet to look up information on things I don’t know. I find the comments sections quite amusing at times and am amazed at how angry people can be and shocked at some of the things people can be bothered to write.
But it has now gotten to the point where the light is getting overshadowed by the dark. Political agendas are pushing us apart more than ever and the internet is fueling this fire. I am really worried that peoples anger is getting the better of them and it is over-spilling into reality more than ever. At one point I thought Hey at least they are writing this stuff and getting it out of they’re system but the politicians are making too much use of platforms like Facebook and Twitter and this makes it more real.
We have to turn the internet off. It’s our only hope. Peace!

Elfiny wrote on October 4, 2017 at 7:23 am:

If it’s regulated my question would be : who decides what is “hate” and what is not. I think it should be a democratic process where people from all perspectives / cultures / races can decide together what we as humans consider offensive or not. The internet transcends borders and governments. Regulation of it should also. It should not be done by American employees of a private company who, most likely, live in an echo chamber of ideas and might simply use such a tool as censorship of ideas they do not believe in.

John wrote on October 4, 2017 at 1:06 pm:

I hate you all. I hate your opinions!!

I have lived in several countries where I can publish that I hate you.
But with the United States, which aren’t really united “states” anymore, compared to Japan at least and probably most of Europe, we have such terrible privacy laws that how could you expect your opinions to be anymore valued than your privacy.

I don’t mind private companies pulling down the messages of my hatred for you. But if a newspaper puts up an article and welcome comments and then delete those opinions they disagree with keeping up only those they agree with… well I hate them even more than I hate you…. Ohhh drats, I just realized I don’t really hate you…. errgg maybe I love you!!!

John Williams wrote on October 4, 2017 at 1:59 pm:

All comments should contain the name and address of the poster. This would deter some of the more flagrant and objectionable posts which are currently hiding behind anonymity.

Stephnie Clark wrote on October 4, 2017 at 3:50 pm:

Check and balance for freedom of speech on-line. Before you hit the send button, ask your self three questions.
1. Is this message important enough to chisel in stone? (with this chiseling comes: a mastery of skill; reducing the earths rocks to powder and a plethora of time)
2. Will this message set-up a chain reaction for the purpose of mentally and physically harming people?
3. Can this message alienate you from future events, such as a job you had your eye on.
If it is humanly possible, be honest with your self and your words.
question 1 – yes – send it
question 2 – yes – erase it
question 3 – yes – erase it
Now we have a safe environment in which people can talk freely with-out reprisal.

1. Lurk wrote on October 4, 2017 at 11:56 pm:

   This makes safe environment where you cant speak you mind without being afraid you will offend some fragile cry-bully that will get you fired over some joke.
   This is opposite of free speech. This is censorship through fear of intimidation. Facebook and twitter are good examples what happens if you employ this. Both become garbage biased propaganda.

   Sometimes you have to offend people. When people are acting stupid and posting stupid shit you need to call them out.

Billy wrote on October 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm:

free speech in any sense is important, people should not be censored for their words/thoughts or opinions just because they might not conform to the general consensus.
i think the internet is a place where people feel comfortable expressing opinions that they might not feel comfortable expressing in the real world, and if somebody says something truly heinous that deserves consequence then there are ways of dealing with it already.

keep the internet the way it is, don’t turn into nannynet.

“I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Mark R. White wrote on October 4, 2017 at 11:45 pm:

I’m a former Marine, a systems engineer that has primarily worked for tech startups over the last decade, and a proud proponent of the entire Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people in the tech world, Mozilla included, like to cherry pick which parts of the Constitution they want to uphold. The entire left side of the political spectrum is overrepresented in Hollywood and the tech industry. This allows for a horribly skewed view of our world because the tech industry and Hollywood have massive soapboxes from which they can pepper the entire world with their opinions, even though those opinions don’t necessarily represent our country. These leftist ideas most likely represent only about a third of our country as is evident by our past presidential election and lack of participation in said election. I offer this preface because there is a certain hard truth that the people on both sides of the spectrum don’t want to believe.

The hard truth of the matter is that there are only two types of speech in this world: free and censored. There is no such thing as hate speech; there is no such thing as discriminatory speech. There is only free or censored speech. These judges that convict citizens over speech are traitors, and should not only be removed from the bench, but imprisoned themselves for gross constitutional violations. Speech, of any type, is legal if you are an American citizen on American soil.

There is another hard truth that people fail to see, and that is the Constitution only protects us from the government. Our first amendment right means the government cannot infringe on our speech, whatever that speech may be, but it doesn’t protect us in our places of employment. If you are an activist, and your employer doesn’t feel you represent them well because of your activism, under federal law, they have every right to terminate you. Additionally, the First Amendment doesn’t protect us in private spaces unless it’s our own private space. No company is required to host a website for a white supremacy or Muslim extremist group, and no one is required to allow you to trespass on their property for their free speech rights. And for any of you social justice warriors out there that want to cry about how someone’s free speech hurt your feelings, you need to take a moment and contemplate what our world would be like without our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Pick up a copy of George Orwell’s 1984 and practice some serious introspection before you decide to lashing out about how your feelings are more important than anyone else’s rights.

Richard Tebaldi wrote on October 5, 2017 at 9:50 am:

I agree with free speech, as long as you take responsibility for what you say. The issue is that people have varying viewpoints based on their present beliefs and often look for confirmation of those beliefs. Consequently they seldom look to other concepts about a particular subject. As Ayn Rand has written, if you look for the quality of what one says, even if it’s one part of the whole, if it has credence or probability, it’s worth listening to. Instead, when many folk see an opposing view, they see it as an insult to theirs, so instead of listening and thinking, they spew forth venom. There is too much garbage on the web. I know when I write about politics in America, I often get stupid reply’s, name calling, no facts just immature garbage. I have to shut them off. Dialogue that shows me where they’re coming from and why they disagree, if they do so intelligently is interesting and educational. I hate lies! I like interesting points of view. As someone once wrote:
I’ve never learned as much from people who think as I do, as I have from people who don’t”!

Anthony J. Fotakis wrote on October 6, 2017 at 3:39 am:

Upper Management of companies have the right to impose on their employees what to say in regards to internal company affairs however, cannot impose their employees what to say in the social or other media or try to inhibit their believes provided they are presentable and of course do not try to represent or express company policies.

Jessy wrote on October 6, 2017 at 3:48 pm:

I think that some internet regulation is helpful to maintain public morals.