4 ms·

No it's not. The first amendment is not free speech, and America isn't the world. Chilling effects can flow from anyone with power, regardless of whether they a

No it's not. The first amendment is not free speech, and America isn't the world. Chilling effects can flow from anyone with power, regardless of whether they are "officially" recognised as a "government". If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, that has exactly the same consequences as the same due to an oppressive "government". ETA: Here is article 19 of the UDHR, which correctly does not mention governments: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

unprepare 10y ago
>If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, then law enforcement has failed, not freedom of speech. its illegal to be a murderous thug, so if there are murderous thugs running around threatening people they should be dealt with within the existing law. I'm not even sure what your argument is - we should enact laws protecting free speech from these murderous thugs? as if those laws would somehow deter them more than the laws against murder?
pigpaws 10y ago
do you mean government encroachment like this: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/housing-authority-demands-ga-man-remove-elaborate-civil-war-display/ http://www.theamericanmirror.com/housing-authority-demands-g... even though you may disagree with the man?
jasode 10y ago
>Here is article 19 of the UDHR, which correctly does not mention governments: You're reading it incorrectly. It doesn't mention "government" at that particular line because the document[1] itself was created as an initiative of government (or quasi-government committee if you think of the United Nations that way) ... as a reaction to Nazi government's failings... and it is aimed at an audience of other governments as a baseline for policy. It is not a document for corporations like Facebook or a religious organization of Muslims. Even in the document's preamble, it states, "Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, " Notice that it says "member nations" and not "member corporations" or "member schools", or "member social clubs". The "nations" are "governments". For example, if you don't interpret the UDHR as a "government" document, the text from Article 15 doesn't make sense: "Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality." That line also doesn't have the word "government." That doesn't mean companies like Facebook were giving out "national citizenship id cards" and shouldn't ever withhold them so people are stateless. It's governments that have that power. > If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, that has exactly the same consequences as the same due to an oppressive "government". As others have pointed out, the laws against murder/assault already handle that case. [1]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...
- nshepperd 10y ago
  You're confusing levels. That means that the member nations are the people doing the defending of free speech, not that they are (necessarily) the people from whom free speech is defended. > As others have pointed out, the laws against murder/assault already handle that case. Since I never suggested making any new laws, this is entirely irrelevant. I'm talking about what constitutes free speech and infringement of free speech, not... whatever it is you think would make special laws relevant.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >You're confusing levels. And you are adding extra levels of meaning that are not in the UDHR to suit your argument. If as you say, there are extra levels of (implied) actors (e.g. religious groups, corporations, etc) besides government in Article 19, it would also means there are extra levels of actors for Article 9: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Was Article 9 put in there because non-government actors such as Mercedes-Benz, or IBM, or religious groups such as Catholics were arresting people and locking them in church prisons? No, the document was a reaction to government abuse (e.g. especially the Nazi government abuse... such as rounding up Jews and killing them.) You're twisting the UDHR in an attempt to make it fit your argument. >I'm talking about what constitutes free speech and infringement of free speech, OK, got it. Let me put it another way: The government can only realistically protect you from the government itself arresting you. The government can restrain itself from putting you in prison for dissenting opinions. The government cannot protect you from advertisers dropping you, or business associates distancing themselves from you, or a girlfriend not marrying you... or other negative consequences of "free speech". You called your girlfriend's mother a "fat whale" and now the wedding is called off?!? Yes, your future mother-in-law was truly an obese monstrosity and you were only speaking the truth! And yet, the fiancé cancels the marriage because you expressed your contempt. Therefore, it means that you truly didn't have "free speech"!!! Well, that's how non-government free speech works. There are consequences. If only the government protected you from broken marriage engagements when you used your "free speech" to express The Truth. Yeah, UDHR Article 19 means you can insult your mother-in-law without consequences. Sure. The government also can't protect you from a crazy suicide disciple of Zeus from inflicting harm because you decide to draw that god getting penetrated by a horse. The government can certainly punish the terrorist after the fact for assault. However, fear of retaliation from a non-government entity is not something the government can stop. What exactly do you expect the government to do? We don't have precognition-guilty-before-the-crime-is-executed technology. If you define "free speech" as "freedom from non-government consequences", there is no government body on the planet that can provide that privilege to you. None.

unprepare 10y ago

>If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, then law enforcement has failed, not freedom of speech. its illegal to be a murderous thug, so if there are murderous thugs running around threatening people they should be dealt with within the existing law. I'm not even sure what your argument is - we should enact laws protecting free speech from these murderous thugs? as if those laws would somehow deter them more than the laws against murder?

pigpaws 10y ago

do you mean government encroachment like this: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/housing-authority-demands-ga-man-remove-elaborate-civil-war-display/ http://www.theamericanmirror.com/housing-authority-demands-g... even though you may disagree with the man?

jasode 10y ago

>Here is article 19 of the UDHR, which correctly does not mention governments: You're reading it incorrectly. It doesn't mention "government" at that particular line because the document[1] itself was created as an initiative of government (or quasi-government committee if you think of the United Nations that way) ... as a reaction to Nazi government's failings... and it is aimed at an audience of other governments as a baseline for policy. It is not a document for corporations like Facebook or a religious organization of Muslims. Even in the document's preamble, it states, "Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, " Notice that it says "member nations" and not "member corporations" or "member schools", or "member social clubs". The "nations" are "governments". For example, if you don't interpret the UDHR as a "government" document, the text from Article 15 doesn't make sense: "Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality." That line also doesn't have the word "government." That doesn't mean companies like Facebook were giving out "national citizenship id cards" and shouldn't ever withhold them so people are stateless. It's governments that have that power. > If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, that has exactly the same consequences as the same due to an oppressive "government". As others have pointed out, the laws against murder/assault already handle that case. [1]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...

nshepperd 10y ago
You're confusing levels. That means that the member nations are the people doing the defending of free speech, not that they are (necessarily) the people from whom free speech is defended. > As others have pointed out, the laws against murder/assault already handle that case. Since I never suggested making any new laws, this is entirely irrelevant. I'm talking about what constitutes free speech and infringement of free speech, not... whatever it is you think would make special laws relevant.
- jasode 10y ago
  >You're confusing levels. And you are adding extra levels of meaning that are not in the UDHR to suit your argument. If as you say, there are extra levels of (implied) actors (e.g. religious groups, corporations, etc) besides government in Article 19, it would also means there are extra levels of actors for Article 9: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Was Article 9 put in there because non-government actors such as Mercedes-Benz, or IBM, or religious groups such as Catholics were arresting people and locking them in church prisons? No, the document was a reaction to government abuse (e.g. especially the Nazi government abuse... such as rounding up Jews and killing them.) You're twisting the UDHR in an attempt to make it fit your argument. >I'm talking about what constitutes free speech and infringement of free speech, OK, got it. Let me put it another way: The government can only realistically protect you from the government itself arresting you. The government can restrain itself from putting you in prison for dissenting opinions. The government cannot protect you from advertisers dropping you, or business associates distancing themselves from you, or a girlfriend not marrying you... or other negative consequences of "free speech". You called your girlfriend's mother a "fat whale" and now the wedding is called off?!? Yes, your future mother-in-law was truly an obese monstrosity and you were only speaking the truth! And yet, the fiancé cancels the marriage because you expressed your contempt. Therefore, it means that you truly didn't have "free speech"!!! Well, that's how non-government free speech works. There are consequences. If only the government protected you from broken marriage engagements when you used your "free speech" to express The Truth. Yeah, UDHR Article 19 means you can insult your mother-in-law without consequences. Sure. The government also can't protect you from a crazy suicide disciple of Zeus from inflicting harm because you decide to draw that god getting penetrated by a horse. The government can certainly punish the terrorist after the fact for assault. However, fear of retaliation from a non-government entity is not something the government can stop. What exactly do you expect the government to do? We don't have precognition-guilty-before-the-crime-is-executed technology. If you define "free speech" as "freedom from non-government consequences", there is no government body on the planet that can provide that privilege to you. None.