• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Paid Speeches Free Speech?

Are Paid Speeches Free Speech?


  • Total voters
    13

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I've been seeing a lot about free speech lately and I'm a little confused on this subject. I don't think Paid speeches are free speech, because ultimately the end result is a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience. I get that paid speeches are a part of the marketplace, but there are differences between paid speeches and just going out and preaching your message.
 
If you say something first, I'm free to repeat it, if I want--but then I'm preaching your message, not mine. Going down the road you've suggested, a lot of people are paid speakers. I teach philosophy at a university, and I get paid to do it. Does the fact that I tailor my "script" to my students and the topics my department asks me to teach mean my lectures aren't protected under the first amendment? What about a dentist who is explaining to a client why flossing is important? They're paid to do that. Or a police officer explaining to someone why they're being pulled over. Or basically any speech associated with a job. Being a speaker is a job, and one at which some folks make good money.

It seems to me the correct analysis is that paid speakers are free to accept a speaking engagement on a certain topic and with a certain slant, they are free to make their speech, and are free to accept payment to do so.
 
I've been seeing a lot about free speech lately and I'm a little confused on this subject. I don't think Paid speeches are free speech, because ultimately the end result is a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience. I get that paid speeches are a part of the marketplace, but there are differences between paid speeches and just going out and preaching your message.

Maybe I'm not understanding the question but I don't really see what the issue is. A person making a speech is looking to either inform you or convince you that what he's saying is right. Why does whether he's paid to deliver the speech matter? And why does it matter with regard to the First Amendment?
 
I've been seeing a lot about free speech lately and I'm a little confused on this subject. I don't think Paid speeches are free speech, because ultimately the end result is a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience. I get that paid speeches are a part of the marketplace, but there are differences between paid speeches and just going out and preaching your message.

It all depends on whether you agree with them or not. If you agree with what's being said it's free speech. If you disagree with what's being said, or even what MIGHT be said, it becomes "hate speech".
 
I'm curious as to why this is a poll and not a definition lookup.

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4] The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

So, the school that prohibited an invited speaker, censored him.Does a paid speech affect whether its treated as free speech or not? No.
 
I've been seeing a lot about free speech lately and I'm a little confused on this subject. I don't think Paid speeches are free speech, because ultimately the end result is a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience. I get that paid speeches are a part of the marketplace, but there are differences between paid speeches and just going out and preaching your message.

Even with non paid speeches there is sometimes a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience message. Church preachers do this all the time on certain subjects such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and other "sin" subjects. Not sure there really is a difference between paid or not in regards to speech. It's all free speech.
 
Yes, generally, but it depends upon the purpose of the paid speech - advertising is limited (regulated) by the government. You cannot make a known to be false claim, such as, this "snake oil" prevents aging. Actually you can come very close so long as it is sold as a "dietary supplement" and flash some small print attesting to that fact. ;)
 
I've been seeing a lot about free speech lately and I'm a little confused on this subject. I don't think Paid speeches are free speech, because ultimately the end result is a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience. I get that paid speeches are a part of the marketplace, but there are differences between paid speeches and just going out and preaching your message.

Agreed. If I contract a speaker to discuss a certain subject for my audience then I have a reasonable expectation that they will discuss that subject. If they fail to do so THEN it becomes free speech because I'm not going to pay them.
 
Since the Government at all levels cannot pass laws pertaining to free speech or it's free exercise,
all speech weather paid for or not is covered.
 
I've been seeing a lot about free speech lately and I'm a little confused on this subject. I don't think Paid speeches are free speech, because ultimately the end result is a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience. I get that paid speeches are a part of the marketplace, but there are differences between paid speeches and just going out and preaching your message.

There is no difference. Who your audience is, or even if you have one is not relevant.
 
I've been seeing a lot about free speech lately and I'm a little confused on this subject. I don't think Paid speeches are free speech, because ultimately the end result is a calculated script tailor-made to a specific audience. I get that paid speeches are a part of the marketplace, but there are differences between paid speeches and just going out and preaching your message.

The opposite of free speech is restricted speech by some authority.

Paid speech is not an example of authoritarian restriction, the speaker can still say whatever they would like. The question is does the speech apply to the subject that the audience wants to hear and perhaps in a manner they want to hear it. But at no time do those confines qualify as authoritarian restriction.

You might as well be saying all conversations that are about a subject are not free speech because of subject being a confine. It is not in these terms of free speech or the absence of free speech.

Payment for the speech is irrelevant to the subject.
 
I'm curious as to why this is a poll and not a definition lookup.

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4] The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

So, the school that prohibited an invited speaker, censored him.Does a paid speech affect whether its treated as free speech or not? No.

But as you said real free speech isn't restricted in any way. I'm assuming if you are paid to do a speech about a certain topic, then if you don't speak about that topic and speak about something else you are breaking the contract and the people who said they were paying you have every right not to pay you for that speech and if possible to use any and all means to stop you from speaking. Especially if you are talking smack about them when you were supposed to be praising them.

That's not really free. It's a regulated contract.
 
The opposite of free speech is restricted speech by some authority.

Paid speech is not an example of authoritarian restriction, the speaker can still say whatever they would like. The question is does the speech apply to the subject that the audience wants to hear and perhaps in a manner they want to hear it. But at no time do those confines qualify as authoritarian restriction.

You might as well be saying all conversations that are about a subject are not free speech because of subject being a confine. It is not in these terms of free speech or the absence of free speech.

Payment for the speech is irrelevant to the subject.

I beg to differ. You are getting paid for a specific function. If in the end you do not meet the contracts stated goals about what the speech should have been about and you go off the rails crazy, your speech will most likely get cut off and you will lose credibility.
 
I beg to differ. You are getting paid for a specific function. If in the end you do not meet the contracts stated goals about what the speech should have been about and you go off the rails crazy, your speech will most likely get cut off and you will lose credibility.

But government authority is not doing the restricting. If someone is getting paid to speak to a specific reason (or "function") then presumably the speaker agrees to do so. There is no removal of free speech as the speaker is voluntarily agreeing to do all this.

What do you not understand about that? No one held a gun to the speakers head nor did they apply some authority over and above an agreement restricting what was said.

A freedom of speech argument does not apply here.
 
Back
Top Bottom