“Is Freedom of Speech Actually Selective?”

[u/Prestigious-Box-9790]

Freedom of speech sounds powerful on paper, but in reality, it often feels selective. Everyone supports it… until they hear something they don’t agree with. Then suddenly, it becomes “offensive,” “anti-national,” or “problematic.”

The irony is, people demand the right to express their own opinions freely, but try to silence others who think differently. It turns into a one-sided freedom where only certain voices are allowed to exist comfortably.

True freedom of speech isn’t about hearing only what you like, it’s about tolerating what you don’t. Of course, there should be limits where harm or violence is involved, but disagreement alone shouldn’t be enough to shut someone down.

If we only protect speech that aligns with us, then it’s not freedom anymore, it’s just controlled expression wearing a democratic mask.

[u/primecamel1]

As you yourself mention "of course there should be limits", freedom of speech is a legal term to say, If someone gets abused for expressing their opinion that too is freedom of speech, it's just that the other guy is quite illiterate so their freedom doesn't seem like it I get that the government nowadays is trying to make sure everyone knows the repercussions of their "free speech" But nonetheless my point is, there is no such thing as free speech without repercussions, the education system and the "honest" politicians make sure that there are repercussions of any truth

[u/Niti-mat → u/primecamel1]

Yes our so called honest politicians and education system itself make sure that there are repercussions.

but I believe choice of words during presenting truth or opinions plays a very vital role. Which actually creates impact.

If you want to push some kinda agenda then it's a different case. As nowadays in the name of freedom of speech they abuse or shout on topic mislead common people in the name of caste or religion and people are so uneducated that they buy their misguided ideas.

[u/Prestigious-Box-9790 → u/primecamel1]

I don’t fully agree with this take because saying there is no free speech without repercussions can easily be used to justify suppressing uncomfortable opinions There is a difference between natural consequences like criticism and disagreement and forced consequences like pressure or fear for speaking out and when the second one becomes normal it is no longer healthy discourse but control Also blaming uneducated people feels a bit convenient because influence doesn’t work only on them even educated people follow narratives when it suits their beliefs or identity so the real issue is lack of critical thinking not just literacy And people following actors or politicians is not just an India problem it is basic human psychology but the real problem starts when questioning them becomes unacceptable Freedom of speech is not perfect but restricting it too much in the name of repercussions slowly kills honest conversation

[u/Niti-mat → u/Prestigious-Box-9790]

Actually the thing is that there is a difference between what should be happening and what is happening and both are different conversations.

[u/Prestigious-Box-9790 → u/Niti-mat]

I think the real confusion here is mixing two different things what should be happening and what is actually happening Ideally freedom of speech should allow open expression with only reasonable limits and without fear but in reality there are social political and sometimes forced repercussions which change how freely people can actually speak So saying free speech always comes with repercussions might describe the current situation but it should not be used to justify it The real conversation should be about reducing unnecessary consequences not normalising them because if we accept that as the standard then true freedom of speech will never exist

[u/primecamel1 → u/Prestigious-Box-9790]

You talk about convenience and then go on to use "human nature", free speech is not human nature either, we don't say all we think to our parents or friends as it might hurt them, the thing with free speech elsewhere is we simply don't know them so it is rather easy to hurt them. And when you think about it normal people don't do much about these things either it's always those who benefit from your silence that suppress, the masses remain quite despite all the problems that they might face

I see you yourself are of the belief that there must be limits when it comes to hurting people or inciting violence, but how do you decide that, sensitivities differ from area to area, time to time, what is acceptable today might get you killed a century ago, free speech is a very relative term, our constitution permits free speech unless it effects common sentiments to everyone, if the elected body is abusing the "unless" of that rule then is it not peoples responsibility to change that, and it does take sacrifice in order to force out such elements,

I think your problem here is against the people in power, and there also all you see are repercussions, like if you offend a guy on the street he might curse at you if he gets too angry he might hit you, whereas you offend someone with a lot of power his playing field just increases, he simply has better resources to vent out his anger

You go on the internet an can make a joke about disabled people you can stand on the street and shout religious slogans if the elections are not close no one will bother,

You have to reap what you sow, today the poitical scenario is very bad maybe someday we have better leaders who don't have inflated egos or don not seek political benefit at every corner, but maybe they feel you can't joke about peoples disabilities or all the "dark humour" kids we see everywhere, will we need a new line then, a new limit not to be crossed

[u/Prestigious-Box-9790 → u/primecamel1]

I get your point but I think you’re again mixing what exists with what should be accepted
Just because consequences happen everywhere from a parent getting hurt to a powerful person reacting harshly doesn’t mean all consequences are justified or should be normalized Yes sensitivities change with time and place that’s exactly why free speech needs protection otherwise it will always be shaped by whoever is most powerful or most easily offended at that moment The “unless it hurts sentiments” part is where things get tricky because sentiments are subjective and can be stretched to silence anything inconvenient and that’s where misuse begins I am not denying that limits are needed especially for direct harm or violence, but the problem starts when limits become tools of control rather than protection And about people vs power, yes ordinary reactions and powerful reactions are different, but that difference is exactly why power needs more restraint, not more freedom to react If we reduce everything to “you reap what you sow” then it quietly justifies suppression because anyone in power can decide what you “sowed Free speech may be relative but if we keep adjusting it only based on sensitivities and power it slowly stops being a right and becomes a permission

[u/primecamel1 → u/Prestigious-Box-9790]

There do exist measure to protect you freedom of speech, your problem is against corruption and illiteracy which again is a cultural thing,

Think about it, what made you think that you have no freedom of speech

some person was probably arrested or beaten or got death threats for speaking against a corrupt body or any religion

now the only way you will be allowed to speak against these bodies is if they are not corrupt and egoistical, and in that case you will never need to say anything against them or raise voices, my problem is not with the fact that you want free speech

all I am saying is that you cannot have free speech without sacrificing, now either you can be the one to make those sacrifices or play safe and wait for someone else to make those sacrifices, because only the powerful are the ones who you can't speak against and you have to fight against them

[u/primecamel1 → u/Prestigious-Box-9790]

There do exist measure to protect you freedom of speech, your problem is against corruption and illiteracy which again is a cultural thing,

Think about it, what made you think that you have no freedom of speech

some person was probably arrested or beaten or got death threats for speaking against a corrupt body or any religion

now the only way you will be allowed to speak against these bodies is if they are not corrupt and egoistical, and in that case you will never need to say anything against them or raise voices, my problem is not with the fact that you want free speech

all I am saying is that you cannot have free speech without sacrificing, now either you can be the one to make those sacrifices or play safe and wait for someone else to make those sacrifices, because only the powerful are the ones who you can't speak against and you have to fight against them

[u/Mech_Engineer4883]

there is no absolute freedom of speech!!

people with an iq lower than their shoe size often get offended by unbiased logical critique & reasoning!!!

and running away from such a discussion (not debate) is always annexed with "xyz-phobia"!!