Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Sigvatr wrote: You're triviliazing freedom of speech to "having different opinions"? Is freedom of speech, according to you, on the same level as debating your favorite book?
Not on the same level, but ultimately the same principles apply, yes. Take the example you yourself provided, in stating that the freedom of speech is "birth-given", i.e. inherent at birth. A constructivist approach would completely disagree with that, stating instead that it is something we as a society have decided upon. A positivist would scoff at the statement that it is "birth-given", since that cannot be observed and thus is impossible to test. If we cannot debate the nature of freedom of speech, we do not have it on a meta-level. There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
There are and have to be restrictions on speech. People worry about a thin end of the wedge, but they miss the reality that there will always be a wedge in place. There never has and never will be a society in which people are free to slander, or able to escape punishment for maliciously causing harm, such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
As such, forming an absolutist position that speech must be absolutely free is actually a very dangerous position, because it leaves you without the tools to discuss how to consider issues of speech when people point out the limits already in place. "We can't allow any restrictions to speech because it will be the thing end of the wedge and more and more restrictions will happen" doesn't work when restrictions have been in place for generations, without spiralling out of control.
Instead what is needed is an understanding of how to balance speech, and how to balance it against other rights where it might threaten them. For instance, if you were to state that a radical Imam should be free to make his case because everyone should be speak, then people might reply that there are already restrictions on the kind of things he’s been saying, such as incitement to violence. The absolutist position has no comeback. But if you instead have a framework that can balance free speech against other rights, it is possible to make the argument that incitement to violence only voids free speech when there is an imminent call to violence, and that simply saying horrible things about another group of people doesn’t isn’t an incitement to violence, and so should remain protected.
Sigvatr wrote: Keep in mind, however, that free speech doesn't mean you can do everything without being persecuted by the law. Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want.
No, it doesn't. That's like claiming we have free murder because we can't stop you committing murder, just punish you for it afterwards.
Free speech means that you are free from government punishment for speaking your mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit: How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?
The problem with the analogy is that as parents, we have to balance the child’s right to speak his mind in his own home, against the need to teach the kid respect and proper behaviour. But in the case of government, it is absolutely, in no way the job of the government to teach adults how they ought to behave, and so there is no competing interest there at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: It's not. Freedom of speech defines one's ability to speak without consequence imposed by law or governance. It is not a freedom from all consequence, such as public condemnation at the hands of society at large.
Which is fine, but "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" is really poor description of that principle, because it misses out the really important bit – that there will be no consequences from government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech. It means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for what you say, it does not in any way require that individuals refrain from reacting to speech they don't like. The NBA forcing the owner to sell his team is no different than you having a guest at your house and telling them to leave when they keep saying things you find offensive.
Where this becomes interesting is when we think of how society informally works to make all kinds of speech banned. It becomes difficult, especially for public figures such as academics and business leaders, to speak frankly on difficult subjects when there's a chance they will be targeted and attacked if they give unpopular opinions.
I am not saying the public cannot exercise their judgement, just that we need a stronger culture to tolerate stuff we don’t like. The recent internet culture of head-taking whenever someone says something objectionable is not a good thing, and it will lead to a stifling of debate.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/17 02:11:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
Hm. Interesting. In what circumstances would you consider not having freedom of speech a good thing?
No, it doesn't. That's like claiming we have free murder because we can't stop you committing murder, just punish you for it afterwards.
Free speech means that you are free from government punishment for speaking your mind.
This would be the case if the "government" was one centralized institution. As with all modern governments, however, there's a seperation of powers - which is absolutely necessary. Freedom of Speech isn't a blanket allowance for hatespeech, threats etc. Freedom of Speech isn't above all else, there's other fundamental rights on the very same level such as the human rights. Freedom of Speech, in a pragmatic understanding, i.e. how it's actually practiced, allows you to express your opinion regardless of what your opinion is. The question is how you express it. A political party or organization that openly stands for the discrimination of hetero- or homosexuals is well within Freedom of Speech. Giving a speech where you ask people to actively go out and attack said group is not okay. That's inciting a crime and thus a crime by itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/17 15:59:19
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
Hm. Interesting. In what circumstances would you consider not having freedom of speech a good thing?
That would depend entirely on how one defines freedom of speech. Give me a definition and I'll try to think of something.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
I can agree that the harm principle is the best method to define when something should be illegal, and the best way to define is something harmful is to see, does it cause direct harm, or immidiate proven indirect harm. Although with some groups like children the definition might be slightly different.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
I can agree that the harm principle is the best method to define when something should be illegal, and the best way to define is something harmful is to see, does it cause direct harm, or immidiate proven indirect harm.
Why, though? You're making a definitive statement and then not backing it up.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
>Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door.
It is true that laws have to fill other requirements, however that does not mean that it is not important that laws should have one definition and only one definition, as it tells that it is a good law, and a law that lacks these qualities will be bad, as if the law can have many interperations, then the law is not fair, as the judgement can differ according to the judge's opinion on the people that are charged. Also, your statement that then all laws are worthless is wrong, as all the other laws are very clear on their definitions, and cannot be interpereted. For example, everybody can tell that is something a murder, or not.
Then make it as so: "Is the speaker advocating harm, defaming, falsley representing, or otherwise lying towards or about the subject being spoken of?". If the answer is "yes", sanctions are in order, if it's "no" then they are not. Lies can be disproven, defamation, libel, and slander are already well-established concepts, and misrepresentation can be shown to be just that, using the same methods that every other crime is judged by, i.e. by the judging of the evidence present.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
is that the charge some editorialists just got slaughtered over?
something about the speaker advocating harm, defaming, falsley representing, or otherwise lying towards or about the subject being spoken of...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
I can agree that the harm principle is the best method to define when something should be illegal, and the best way to define is something harmful is to see, does it cause direct harm, or immidiate proven indirect harm.
Why, though? You're making a definitive statement and then not backing it up.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
>Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door.
It is true that laws have to fill other requirements, however that does not mean that it is not important that laws should have one definition and only one definition, as it tells that it is a good law, and a law that lacks these qualities will be bad, as if the law can have many interperations, then the law is not fair, as the judgement can differ according to the judge's opinion on the people that are charged. Also, your statement that then all laws are worthless is wrong, as all the other laws are very clear on their definitions, and cannot be interpereted. For example, everybody can tell that is something a murder, or not.
Then make it as so: "Is the speaker advocating harm, defaming, falsley representing, or otherwise lying towards or about the subject being spoken of?". If the answer is "yes", sanctions are in order, if it's "no" then they are not. Lies can be disproven, defamation, libel, and slander are already well-established concepts, and misrepresentation can be shown to be just that, using the same methods that every other crime is judged by, i.e. by the judging of the evidence present.
>Why, though? You're making a definitive statement and then not backing it up.
We can probably all agree thet the best society is one in which unjust harm is as little as possible, so becasue of that reducing it is a good idea. However, all indirect harm can't be illegal, as almost anything can cause indirect harm, and people should only be responsible for their own actions. For example, it is illegal to stab a person, but if also all indirect harm is illegal, then the knife manuafacturer would be also a criminal, as he indirectly helped to cause the harm.
>Then make it as so: "Is the speaker advocating harm, defaming, falsley representing, or otherwise lying towards or about the subject being spoken of?". If the answer is "yes", sanctions are in order, if it's "no" then they are not. Lies can be disproven, defamation, libel, and slander are already well-established concepts, and misrepresentation can be shown to be just that, using the same methods that every other crime is judged by, i.e. by the judging of the evidence present.
A law like that would have one main problem though. If. as it is defined like that, it would mean that almost all negative statements are illegal, and as a effect for example almost all journalists would as a result be criminals. Also, another problem of that law would be, that if the statement was thought to be true at the moment it was made, but later new evidence made it false, then it would be criminal that you made the statement. And finally, by that law most crimes that are considered hate crimes would then again not be hate crimes.
Sienisoturi wrote: A law like that would have one main problem though. If. as it is defined like that, it would mean that almost all negative statements are illegal, and as a effect for example almost all journalists would as a result be criminals. Also, another problem of that law would be, that if the statement was thought to be true at the moment it was made, but later new evidence made it false, then it would be criminal that you made the statement. And finally, by that law most crimes that are considered hate crimes would then again not be hate crimes.
Negative statements would not be illegal, only those that are demonstrably false. Essentially it'd be an extention of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", in that you'd not be allowed to accuse people or groups of people of something you could not prove. For example, you'd still be perfectly free to claim that the world is run by lizard Jews, but if you can't put up, then you'd just have to accept that you don't have any proof and either get it or drop the issue.
The "retroactive" illegality would be covered by the concept of acting in good faith.
Hate crimes would still be hate crimes, because they would be aimed at a protected group due to them being part of that group.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
You also said harmful. Harmful is in the eye of the beerholder. Anything that upsets a soccer mom or politician being made to look bad is harmful.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
In which case the courts would have to remind said soccer moms that being annoyed is not the same as being harmed. If what is making the politician look bad is in fact true then tough luck.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In which case the courts would have to remind said soccer moms that being annoyed is not the same as being harmed. If what is making the politician look bad is in fact true then tough luck.
Under the definition being played with soccer moms would determine if your free speech is free or if you should be punished.
Substitute the local pasta being representative as desired.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/17 19:11:05
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Oh my god, that's like a total cop-out
It seems that both of us share a similar definition. I also consider freedom of speech a very important thing to have, if not the most important, but as stated in my pevious post, it has its limits and, most of all, even the very broad definition does not inherently limit any action taken against people expressing their opinion.
"I hate all left-handed people and would like to see all of them die." falls under Freedom of Speech. Or, more relevant:
"Our prime minister is treating us in an inacceptable manner." Again, Freedom of Speech.
Now...
"Kill all left-handed people!". Inciting a crime, not Freedom of Speech.
"Kill the prime minister!"...likewise.
Yet I still don't think that this answers my previous question - when do you think is no Freedom of Speech better than having Freedom of Speech?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/17 19:15:17
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Oh my god, that's like a total cop-out
It seems that both of us share a similar definition. I also consider freedom of speech a very important thing to have, if not the most important, but as stated in my pevious post, it has its limits and, most of all, even the very broad definition does not inherently limit any action taken against people expressing their opinion.
"I hate all left-handed people and would like to see all of them die." falls under Freedom of Speech. Or, more relevant:
"Our prime minister is treating us in an inacceptable manner." Again, Freedom of Speech.
Now...
"Kill all left-handed people!". Inciting a crime, not Freedom of Speech.
"Kill the prime minister!"...likewise.
Yet I still don't think that this answers my previous question - when do you think is no Freedom of Speech better than having Freedom of Speech?
In the military, or when handling sensitive information. As already mentioned, in court. When acting in the capacity of an official or a civil servant.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
Hm. Interesting. In what circumstances would you consider not having freedom of speech a good thing?
I believe the purpose of freedom of speech is to allow political opinion and religious belief to be practiced without discrimination. I think where freedom of speech ends is where someone walks up to you and randomly says "f... you a'hole" or similar. It was never meant to be a vehicle for someone to be rude or hurtful. Now sure, people can take offence at anything you say and think, but within reason, protections should be for ideas rather than insults.
So while you may hate some street preacher telling you about the word of god, he has the right to do so, but the drunk homeless guy screaming obscenities at passers by does not and hopefully a cop will show up to move him on or arrest him.
@Walrus: That, however, isn't covered by Freedom of Speech as the individual willingly accepts the limit to Freedom of Speech. Noone forces him to agree to it, he decided to do so at free will.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/17 20:34:03
Sienisoturi wrote: A law like that would have one main problem though. If. as it is defined like that, it would mean that almost all negative statements are illegal, and as a effect for example almost all journalists would as a result be criminals. Also, another problem of that law would be, that if the statement was thought to be true at the moment it was made, but later new evidence made it false, then it would be criminal that you made the statement. And finally, by that law most crimes that are considered hate crimes would then again not be hate crimes.
Negative statements would not be illegal, only those that are demonstrably false. Essentially it'd be an extention of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", in that you'd not be allowed to accuse people or groups of people of something you could not prove. For example, you'd still be perfectly free to claim that the world is run by lizard Jews, but if you can't put up, then you'd just have to accept that you don't have any proof and either get it or drop the issue.
The "retroactive" illegality would be covered by the concept of acting in good faith.
Hate crimes would still be hate crimes, because they would be aimed at a protected group due to them being part of that group.
>Negative statements would not be illegal, only those that are demonstrably false. Essentially it'd be an extention of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", in that you'd not be allowed to accuse people or groups of people of something you could not prove. For example, you'd still be perfectly free to claim that the world is run by lizard Jews, but if you can't put up, then you'd just have to accept that you don't have any proof and either get it or drop the issue.
By that definition most speeches that are considered hate speech are not, as many of them do not make stetements, but are for example encouraging somebody to do something.
>The "retroactive" illegality would be covered by the concept of acting in good faith.
That part of the law would completely destroy it so to say, as anybody could then claim that they thought that their statement was true when they said it.
Also, I must ask this know, that what harm would lying about one group cause to that group always, as to limit somebodys freedom there needs to be a serious reason to do that?
Also, I must ask this know, that what harm would lying about one group cause to that group always, as to limit somebodys freedom there needs to be a serious reason to do that?
Mostly political propaganda.
Also, inciting public action (or inaction) that is directly harmful to the public good, public welfare and public health.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/18 02:06:53
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Sigvatr wrote: This would be the case if the "government" was one centralized institution. As with all modern governments, however, there's a seperation of powers - which is absolutely necessary. Freedom of Speech isn't a blanket allowance for hatespeech, threats etc. Freedom of Speech isn't above all else, there's other fundamental rights on the very same level such as the human rights. Freedom of Speech, in a pragmatic understanding, i.e. how it's actually practiced, allows you to express your opinion regardless of what your opinion is. The question is how you express it. A political party or organization that openly stands for the discrimination of hetero- or homosexuals is well within Freedom of Speech. Giving a speech where you ask people to actively go out and attack said group is not okay. That's inciting a crime and thus a crime by itself.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
To expand on that – remember that the government can actually stop you saying something. Consider a person who makes it known they are about to walk in to a crowded theatre and shout ‘fire’ – a policeman on the scene will be lawful in detaining that person and preventing them from their malicious statement So your statement that ‘Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want” isn’t true – government can and will prevent certain statements.
So when looking at free speech we can’t simply look at whether prevention or punishment exist – they will always exist for certain kinds of speech that cross certain boundaries. Instead we have to look at what those boundaries are, where we draw a line between political speech and hate speech for instance, or the line between art and vulgarity.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/18 15:43:02
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
We should charge people by the minute to hear what I have to say!
Finally some realistic solutions!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
