Freedom of speech is not without consequences this is one example. Regulating speech is taking political correctness waaay too far. It sets a bad precident, PC language is starting to resemble the newspeak dictionary enough as it is.

@ARE_you_kidding_me So how would you suggest that cyberbullying and suicide prevention is tackled?

Well, they both already are protected. Being a bully isn’t illegal. But Twitter and Facebook are businesses, and their “storefronts” are the websites—they have some say in who they allow and don’t allow, in what behavior they will permit—so long as their decisions aren’t discriminatory.

Cyberbullying can get fairly vicious, some of the most extreme cases being demands that the victim just kill them self already, etc… and given the ease at which cyberbullies can attack a victim silently and anonymously through those sorts of avenues, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for those companies to try and stop that kind of behavior. They can’t control what the bullies do outside of their perimeter, but they don’t have to be bystanders within their perimeter.

Cyber-hate speech… aka trolling… so long as it doesn’t cross the line into threats, I think companies probably should allow it to remain… I think we probably need more practice at figuring out how to diffuse that kind of heated rhetoric—target practice, I guess. At least in the US, it seems to me that right now we have a president elected at least in part because of that kind of heated rhetoric. Learning to better diffuse it seems quite necessary… Of course, the social media have been cultivating ideological bubbles on respective their sites—what content they present to each person, etc.—because that’s what they think people want, probably because that’s what people have acted like they want. It’d probably take some time and persuasion to get the companies to think otherwise.

I do think companies have a responsibility, or at least ought to have a responsibility, to be more transparent with their business practices… And the things that come out about the way Facebook curates the content it presents to users concerns me… At the same time, I suppose if we had a society better at determining source credibility, the recent “fake news” hubbub wouldn’t have been as big of an issue, at least.

And then, because PC language was mentioned and this has been a bit of a sore-spot for me recently… I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with the efforts for so-called “PC” language choices. In its best manifestation, it’s asking us to consider the unfortunate/outdated/prejudiced connotations lurking in the words we choose, and to either find a better word, or to work at raking away the unwanted connotations. Sure, sometimes it can get roped into people’s efforts to shut down an unwanted conversation, or to peg people into certain holes—but the roping and the pegging are nothing new to humanity, and are certainly not caused by seeking more precise, less assumption-laden, less inflammatory language. (As far as being “politically correct” is choosing euphemisms or vague language to hide unpleasant truths—the way the term “political correctness” was used when I was growing up—I agree that’s not helping anyone.)

Privately owned sites have every right to regulate what is associated with the brand. Freedom of speech is not being restricted, there are lots of places anyone can say anything, both online and in person.

No. Freedom of speech is the right to express opinions, views, and ideas without fear of government sanction. Every right comes with responsibilities, and freedom of speech has limitations; it isn’t the right to defame, threaten, endanger, or harm.

You have asked this before. I really like this question because it really pisses me off that some people see cyber bullying, name calling, shaming as ‘freedom of speech’. I know this sounds harsh but if you came from South Africa where I come from, you’d be either punched or shot for some of the things people feel free to say.

It is NOT legal. It is illegal. However, it seems poorly regulated at some points. Then at other points over the top regulated. I recall (and cannot remember all the detail) a guy that said he felt like blowing up an airport because his girlfriend’s flight had been delayed.

It was a joke of course, but he was arrested.

This is one thing I despise about the internet. Suddenly everyone is fearless, everyone says what they think and feel in a harmful way.You are right there are so many suicides and depression because of what is going on with internet posting.

There are laws in place I guess the only thing to do, is actually use them?

“Fighting words”, harassment, inciting to riot, fraud and other forms of speech are already illegal, even in jurisdictions that have very broad views of “freedom of expression”.

Some people equate “expressing a negative opinion” (even a very strongly worded one, including raised voices and curses) as “hate speech”, which many of the same jurisdictions prosecute as a crime, too. I think this is a mistake.

Unrelenting shouting, disruption of another person’s normal (legal) business, “pranks” that rise to the level of criminal mischief or which simulate violent crime, and okay, “bullying” to the extent that it encourages others to focus odious speech (and action, particularly that) upon a particular individual – these should all be crimes. But for me to say, if I were to say it, “I hate faggots and I hope they all die in a fire” – as revolting and “hateful” as it would be to have those thoughts and to express them either in public or in private – should not be a crime. Now, that may seem a fine line, and I would agree that a statement that “I hate you because you’re a faggot, and I hope that you die in a fire” is probably crossing the line. That kind of attack – because that clearly is one, in a personal way such as that – should be condemned and sanctioned.

But I think that it’s better for all of us – and safer, too – if bigots are allowed to “out themselves” with their protected speech, so that we can all steer clear of them.

I’m reminded of some wise words on the topic from one of my favorite social and political commentators, who said:

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
– H. L. Mencken

@CWOTUS Well said. It’s a tricky line to walk, but I think you did a good job explaining where to draw that line.

The freedom of speech isn’t without limits. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater and cause people to get hurt. You can’t use your words to commit fraud, hire a hitman, incite a riot, or to harass other people. You should however always be able to use your words to express your opinion, no matter how unpopular. If you want to bring back slavery for disabled orphaned children, then you should have a right to express that thought no matter what.

@NerdyKeith I’m with @CWOTUS