A journalist in Germany was just sentenced to seven months for posting a meme of a politician where she holds up a sign saying "I hate free speech".
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nancy-faeser-afd-...
That particular case seems egregious, especially the jail part (edit: oh, it's a suspended sentence, so zero jail time). On the other hand a world where news organizations can just photoshop any sign onto any politician and claim they support whatever doesn't seem great either.
But neither does using ICE to snatch people off the streets for making social media posts. (Someone will reply to this with some variant of "oh, but they're immigrants, they don't deserve the freedom to criticize the US", and then we're back at the whataboutery Olympics)
Perhaps it's only worth getting worked up about free speech when the speech is true, authentic and accurate?
(epilogue: this whole topic was at the top of HN for about a minute before it got flagged off, lol)
All societies regulate speech. There is no such thing as free speech in the literal/absolute sense of the word. Probably every society has an instance that someone can point to as stifling speech. Your phrasing succinctly gets to the crux of the matter.
UK equivalent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
> "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (for the benefit of my MI5 handler, that is a quotation not a threat)
In the US, the restrictions are left to things like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Because that is harmful to society.
The focus should be on the real damage of the speech - not the “authenticity”. Also we should not restrict people from expressing their opinions regardless of whether or not they are authentic.
These ideas are meant to prevent a tyrannical government from jailing individuals because it doesn’t like its speech.
> Because that is harmful to society.
So you agree that "harmful to society" is valid reasoning .. which justifies banning things like holocaust denial and incitement to racism?
I would say the harm of those individual actions don’t rise to the harm of restricting the speech itself, with a bias towards free speech.
As with all laws and regulations interpretations are handled by the judiciary.
I like the phrasing OP makes because it grounds the discussion of free speech in a more reasonable fashion rather than nitpicking about some extreme situation.