I find the topic of free speech fascinating. Asking what people’s definition of the concept is becomes a bit metatextual and ironic since having an opinion, on having and expressing an opinion, is exactly that.
I will kick it off by giving my opinion:
Free speech is not the ability to express your opinion but rather it is the ability to allow others to express their opinions to you.
Free speech is being able to express your feelings and opinion to others without being gagged or censored. It does not however mean that whatever you say has no consequences. I think a lot of people don’t realise that.
I completely agree with you on this
So what if you can do that but you refuse to at least hear what others say? Are we all then just shouting into the void? Or is there a point to raising your opinion about something?
Free speech to me means you can say what you want, without any fear of being persecuted for speaking out. But there is a big difference between being persecuted for speaking and being persecuted for WHAT you are saying. Just because you can share your opinion legally doesn’t mean you are free from the consequences of that opinion. Also, because you are allowed to share your opinion does not mean I need to listen to it, or anyone has to listen to you or take you seriously. If your opinion goes against the values and morality of people listening, they are allowed to chastise you for WHAT you said, but not for speaking out on a topic.
Oh yes, there is no requirement for others to listen to you. For that the “how” you say what you want to say will play a big role in getting others to listen. Also your actions and example can play a big role in that. If your actions and words don’t line up people won’t want to hear it. On the flip side, one’s authenticity and efforts can build platform from which to speak. People are far more willing to listen if they know that you back up what you say with your actions.
Ok, for the most part the respondents to my question have stated something about the “consequences” of an opinion or the expressing of that opinion. My next question then has to be, who/what determines what those consequences are and the limits someone can go to express an opinion before there are consequences?
It all depends on the platform and the situation. Each situation where the argument of free speech will pop up is different from the last.
As an example, when a person goes onto a social media page and proclaims their opinion on vaccines being they are “not effective and dangerous”, under free speech they are completely allowed to have that opinion. The fallout of such a statement of many people lambasting them for their opinion on said social media page is also 100% valid, as they’ve had the freedom to state their position, but collectively the audience of the platform they are proclaiming their opinion is also totally entitled to retort.
Another example would be in religion. Free speech means you are completely entitled to post your opinions on the validity of one religion over the other, but you are not protected from the vitriol that would cause based on the audience you make that statement. Say you have an opinion against Christianism, when you post said opinion on a platform that is read predominantly by Christians, you are free to post, but not free from the backlash of your statement.
I guess the answer then comes down to the audience. Obviously, when you make statements on any platform, be it online or in real life, the audience is a subset of a particular grouping of humans, most likely with similar values. I would say these are the people that would determine whether or not there will be consequences to your “free speech” opinions.
These days, I would like the freedom to say, post or do anything without it being sold to the highest/any/every bidder.