What are the restrictions on Freedom of Speech? Why do they exist? What should we do about them?
Freedom of speech, or in a broader sense the freedom to express yourself, verbally or non-verbally, is a sacred idea in our Minds.
...but is it truly free? Are you free to say absolutely whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, and however you want?
Sorry for dropping the first bomb early, but NO, you are not that omnipotent with speech. Unless you have secured yourself an extremely powerful position in society where practically might makes right, you do not have absolute free speech. With the way modern (Western) societies organize themselves, such a position is merely a dream.
In a civilized society, you are bound by laws, regulations, codes of conducts and most of the times also by a very heavy expectation from others around you to behave within certain confines for the way you speak and the contents you INTEND to "publish" into the world. These are basically rules - the antithesis of freedom, or so we tend to think.
Are these rules necessary? Are they justified by some kind of values that would be otherwise unattainable no matter how we try to organize ourselves and our society?
There are all sorts of ways we can try to scrutinize these rules and go down the rabbit hole, where eventually their true nature becomes plainly visible:
What are the rules limiting our speech?
Why have they come to exist?
Do we still need them?
At this point I want to make it clear that I am not an expert of any kind in any area of expertise related to these matters. I am just a concerned person watching the world in conflict about what best to do regarding communications and freedom. I write this piece of a rant not because I want to make a statement, or present an argument in a flashy way. I simply want to try to present my thoughts the best I could, then hope that other minds could share with me what they think.
This is what I think:
All of the rules against letting individuals have absolute freedom of speech, have become justified one way or another by the DUTY OF CARE. Whether or not you may say something, in compliance to legal responsibility or social responsibility, would largely be dependent on the question of whether or not you owe anyone the duty of care.
When the responsibility is purely social, anyone is free to be an objectionable asshole and to say whatever they want. The violation of social responsibility will have negative consequences, but being of social nature, such consequences can be evaded if the violating person has the abilities to navigate the complex social structures. In other word, you may be able to "get away with it" and suffer minimal backlash.
When the responsibility is legally binding, the stakes are raised much higher. Violating the rules and neglecting your duty of care will result in punishments enforced by a far more resilient social structure: the judicial system. There are plenty examples of the more critical duty of care enforced by the judicial system regarding speech and publications:
A duty to keep from inciting violence, especially when you hold a good deal of credible social influence.
A duty to keep from committing libel or defamation against a person whom the derogatory descriptions do not factually apply.
A duty to actively avoid harming another person whom you know certain contents within your ability of expression will directly, seriously and invariably hurt.
Even though the duty of care is mentioned and clarified in many contexts in laws and regulations, and is very frequently cited in common law, this duty still remains an elusive concept in everyday social interactions:
Where does this duty apply?
To whom do I owe the duty of care and when does my speech have anything to do with their circumstances?
To what extent is this duty of care enforceable, that I must revise and censor my own communications and expressions to comply?
These are the devils hiding themselves among the details regarding the limitations of free speech in modern society. In many instances it will be outright impossible to pinpoint how much "care" one person owes another.
For the same reason your freedom must not infringe another's, your expressions must not in any way hinder another person's right to express themselves. The law cannot account for everyone and every situation imaginable, so the English Common Law is by far the best bet for rights and regulations to evolve over time as it chases after the exponentially growing intricacies of modern society.
______________________________________________________
Now, let me brace myself for the second bomb drop. What does this duty-of-care principle mean in the context of an online social network?
I have not been able to wrap my head around a good answer yet. Still, I would like to leave an incomplete thought here and hope that people will help me correct and develop it later:
The more distant the social network is from its participants' true identities, the less the duty of care applies to any situation within the boundary of the network.
Take a look at Facebook, where even if a couple troll-ish friends feel itchy about the extra letter you put after your middle name and hit the "report" function, it will be very likely somebody with the right authority would swiftly "correct" that for the sake of the community and clarify your identity, on your behalf, to the online social world.
In such an environment, every online identity is theoretically tied to one real and unique individual, thus many consequences of online activities will likely go through in full sync with their daily life. There have been cases where prosecutors put people's responsibility where their mouth was on Facebook, condemning words of slander, libel, defamation, and harassment which caused verifiable damages. Obviously, in any of these cases, TRUTH is the only solid defense. If the contested words were not truthful, you will be made good example of the network's policy against ... whatever the consensus doesn't want you to say.
What would happen to duty of care in an online social network that does not enforce, and even actively excuses itself from ALL expressions of its users, including the expression of identity? Does ANY duty of care remain then, as we are all supposedly talking to made-up avatars with cryptic names?
Between these two extremes (I don't mean to put Facebook on an extreme end of any comparative dimension, but let's leave it at that for the sake of argument), where does Minds.com stand?
Do we owe our fellow Minds a duty of care?
How do we account for exceptions, and
How should we define Minds' unique environment of free speech? (I read the word "cesspool" somewhere, but let's not be overly sensitive heheheh.)
Should you wish to leave a comment on this matter that I am pondering about, I humbly decline any duty of care that any Minds user might feel obligated to uphold for my sake (thanks btw). I only wish that you would speak your mind about the matter, in a way that I could comprehend (English please, preferably with fewer insults than opinions, ideas and arguments).