Print Topic

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board  /   General Chat  /  free speech
Posted by: leitskev, April 28th, 2017, 9:17am
Free speech is a pretty important concept in the world of screenwriting and movie making. Everyone says they support the right to free speech, and everyone thinks they do...but do they really?

Supporting free speech means defending the right of those people we disagree with, perhaps even loathe.

So the question is: do we really support the right to free speech? Or do we just say we do?
Posted by: AnthonyCawood, April 28th, 2017, 9:47am; Reply: 1
Yep, I do...

There are exceptions in real life, hate speech and the like, which creates interesting grey areas for screenwriters.

But yes, opinions I disagree with are to be defended.

But I would say that, I'm one of those wishy-washy liberal types ;-)
Posted by: James McClung, April 28th, 2017, 9:51am; Reply: 2

Quoted from leitskev
So the question is: do we really support the right to free speech? Or do we just say we do


Who is "we?" Screenwriters?
Posted by: leitskev, April 28th, 2017, 10:07am; Reply: 3
I support the right to free speech unequivocally. The exceptions are few. For example, yelling fire in a crowded movie theater(unless there is actually a fire).

If we start qualifying hate speech, we don't truly support the right to free speech, because once we open that door it becomes too easy for anything to be called "hate" speech. For example, when Obama complained about people clinging to their guns and their religion, is that hate speech? If someone calls Trump an orange-headed moron, is that hate speech? We should not be too eager to be in the business of deciding what is hate.

If someone is calling for violence...calling, not inciting...then that might be an exception. Even then, the greatest caution must be used to make sure we are defending the principle of free speech.

In recent examples on campuses, conservative speakers have had their speeches canceled because they are "inciting violence"...even though the violence is not from the speaker's supporters, but rather from opposition.

That goes to the very heart of denying the right to free speech.

And there are quite a few people comfortable with that.
Posted by: AnthonyCawood, April 28th, 2017, 10:44am; Reply: 4
I think I agree with your definition of hate speech, I see it as someone intentionally calling for violence or inciting others to that violent act against another, be it a person, racial group, religious group etc. I've used violence in the example but there are other terms that could be counted too, e.g. Enslave.

For example...

I don't like blue people - not hate speech
I want to kill blue people - hate speech
I want you to go get a gun and kill blue people - hate speech

I'm not sure about your definition of unequivocal though, I believe it means without exceptions or conditions... but you have some, perhaps demonstrating the problems inherent with free speech (and hate speech), defining it and defending it.
Posted by: leitskev, April 28th, 2017, 10:57am; Reply: 5
We're in agreement. I used the word unequivocal with the qualification that directly inciting violence becomes something almost more than just speech. But I unequivocally support the right to express any opinion.

As for demonstrations protesting speech, I'm ok with them as long as there is no attempt to silence the speaker. Obviously violence is the main problem, but if people try to shout down a speaker I consider that a violation as well.

College campuses have become some of the least free spaces in our civilization. This has been going on a long time, even when I was in college in the neolithic age.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-free-speech-kass-0430-20170428-column.html
Posted by: Ares, August 6th, 2017, 6:48pm; Reply: 6
A very interesting topic.

I do support the Freedom of Speech. For me, that also includes the right to be a jackass to others.
My rationale is that if you are a jackass, I want you to show it so I can know the content of your character and avoid any acquaintance with you, if and when that is possible. If people are forced to "wear masks" then we cannot know who anyone actually is and as a result, our society becomes less and less trustful and we begin to see others as potential enemies instead of potential friends.

However, this does not include forcing your "Freedom of Speech" to others. Your freedoms stop where the freedoms of others begin. You have every right to want me to hear you and I have every right to not want to hear you.

For me, Freedom of Speech includes all and any words that one may use and any opinion that one may express using these words. Even things that are classified as "hate speech" or "hate rhetoric", as long as these are physically harmless expressions of one's opinions. Acts are a totally different topic.

My concern is that if we deny people's right to be jackasses, a "Thought Police" will be formed and soon the only freedom that we will have will be freedom from Freedom itself. So if this means that in order to protect this and all the other Freedoms we need to toughen up a bit and learn how to handle bullies and trolls and how to judge characters, so be it. I would choose bullies and trolls any day instead of the Thought Police.
Posted by: Warren, August 6th, 2017, 7:02pm; Reply: 7
Wow, tough, thought provoking question.

Do I know the right thing to do is to support free speech, definitely.

Do I wish that wasn't the case, definitely.

So many things are policed in modern society already, why not stop racists, misogynists, terrorists, and trolls from being able to say what they like. Punish them I say. I think it could only make the world a better place.

Can of worms opened haha.
Posted by: eldave1, August 7th, 2017, 6:13pm; Reply: 8

Quoted from leitskev

As for demonstrations protesting speech, I'm ok with them as long as there is no attempt to silence the speaker. Obviously violence is the main problem, but if people try to shout down a speaker I consider that a violation as well.


Disagree here.  

If I protest against a speaker that a college has decided to hire and as a result of mine and others protest they decide not to hire them - aren't they just reacting to my right to free speech? There was no law that made them not have that speaker. They were merely responding to the outcry and making a decision on what to do.

Colin Kapernick is not quarterbacking this year because of the outcry related to the stance he took regarding the anthem. I happen to side with Colin, but I don't believe that teams not hiring him violates his speech rights. The teams are just responding to the public who exercised theirs.

Print page generated: April 28th, 2024, 4:24pm