4 ms·

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 w

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.
- nshepperd 10y ago
  > 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 actors (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." Look, it's really not that complicated. When an actor is unspecified, the obvious answer is "anyone". "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile (by anyone)." That makes perfect sense. There's no reason to restrict it to governments. > 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 dissent. So what? I already said I don't care what the government "can protect me from". I'm talking about the definition and societal value of free speech. The fact that people willfully conflate this moral concept with government action that may be aimed at defending (some instantiations of) this concept is the problem. > Yeah, UDHR means you can insult your mother-in-law without consequences. Sure. That's what we in the business call a "straw man". ETA: I now see from reading your other comments that you clearly have a violent case of the Just World Fallacy. My condolences. That makes it perfectly clear why you would think that the premise that the government can't perfectly defend free speech against non-state actors means we should just give up and pretend no such right exists, and (by contrapositive) that me claiming the existence of such a moral right somehow means I think the government can reliably enforce it. Of course, both of these implications are false.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >When an actor is unspecified, the obvious answer is "anyone"." Which then means that Article 15 that doesn't specify an actor when talking about "right to nationality" calls on anyone to provide that nationality. If a stateless person washes up on shore of America, and if the USA refuses to provide citizenship, nsheppard or me (or anyone) gives him that citizenship. Your (non-government) interpretation of UDHR does not have logical coherence that works for the whole document. > I already said I don't care what the government "can protect me from" If so, there is no need to refer to the UDHR in an attempt to back up your argument. That document's preamble is "Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, " which calls on governments to enforce the rights. Since enforcment is irrelevant to you, we can ignore the UDHR and not let out-of-context quotes of Article 19 muddy up subsequent conversation. > moral right I'm not proposing we give up. My position is more nuanced than that. I suggest that people don't frame non-government "free speech" as a "moral right". Instead, see it as an "economic puzzle". This leads to clearer thinking. The "free speech" (unrelated to government arrests) that people want has a "cost". Understand what that cost is and analyze how to pay for it. If you're unwilling to pay the cost, you're unwilling to have "free speech".

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.

nshepperd 10y ago
> 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 actors (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." Look, it's really not that complicated. When an actor is unspecified, the obvious answer is "anyone". "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile (by anyone)." That makes perfect sense. There's no reason to restrict it to governments. > 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 dissent. So what? I already said I don't care what the government "can protect me from". I'm talking about the definition and societal value of free speech. The fact that people willfully conflate this moral concept with government action that may be aimed at defending (some instantiations of) this concept is the problem. > Yeah, UDHR means you can insult your mother-in-law without consequences. Sure. That's what we in the business call a "straw man". ETA: I now see from reading your other comments that you clearly have a violent case of the Just World Fallacy. My condolences. That makes it perfectly clear why you would think that the premise that the government can't perfectly defend free speech against non-state actors means we should just give up and pretend no such right exists, and (by contrapositive) that me claiming the existence of such a moral right somehow means I think the government can reliably enforce it. Of course, both of these implications are false.
- jasode 10y ago
  >When an actor is unspecified, the obvious answer is "anyone"." Which then means that Article 15 that doesn't specify an actor when talking about "right to nationality" calls on anyone to provide that nationality. If a stateless person washes up on shore of America, and if the USA refuses to provide citizenship, nsheppard or me (or anyone) gives him that citizenship. Your (non-government) interpretation of UDHR does not have logical coherence that works for the whole document. > I already said I don't care what the government "can protect me from" If so, there is no need to refer to the UDHR in an attempt to back up your argument. That document's preamble is "Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, " which calls on governments to enforce the rights. Since enforcment is irrelevant to you, we can ignore the UDHR and not let out-of-context quotes of Article 19 muddy up subsequent conversation. > moral right I'm not proposing we give up. My position is more nuanced than that. I suggest that people don't frame non-government "free speech" as a "moral right". Instead, see it as an "economic puzzle". This leads to clearer thinking. The "free speech" (unrelated to government arrests) that people want has a "cost". Understand what that cost is and analyze how to pay for it. If you're unwilling to pay the cost, you're unwilling to have "free speech".