[redczar]

That last paragraph is nicely stated. I’m going to borrow it.

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.

[huntertwo]

Who decides what speech is “true, authentic and accurate”?

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.

[redczar]

Who decides what speech is “true, authentic and accurate”?

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.

[huntertwo]

The meaning of “true, authentic, and accurate” is easier to twist than “harm to society” - suddenly proclaiming trans people exist is a crime because it is not “true”

[redczar]

As stated I like the phrasing OP used. You are free to use another phrasing. What I’m not going to do is get into a debate on how to precisely define the terms used. One can nitpick any phrasing of any law/regulation. That’s why there are lawyers in every society. But I’m not engaged in a legal discussion at this time. If you don’t like OP’s wording then don’t use it.

[huntertwo]

I’m arguing the principles of “is this speech virtuous” as a prerequisite vs “is this speech harmful” as a disqualifier - not the exact definition. Whatever virtue test you use for the speech, it can be more easily abused than a harmfulness test.

[redczar]

Why are you making such an argument? This is a rhetorical question I don’t actually care what the answer is. It’s fascinating you feel the need to chime in about this when all I did is like someone’s way of stating things. No one cares about the pedantic nitpicking you are engaged with. Well, no one should care.

[pjc50]

This line actually comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States , in which it was ruled that distributing pamphlets protesting the draft was not legal free 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?

[huntertwo]

Holocaust denial no, incitements to saying the N word no, but incitements to physically harm people because of their race or ethnicity yes.

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.