4 ms·

Except they obviously do have free speech. The fact that they can't say everything doesn't mean they can't say anything. By your standard, no one has free spe

by fatbird 10y ago

Except they obviously do have free speech. The fact that they can't say everything doesn't mean they can't say anything. By your standard, no one has free speech. In America, you're not allowed to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government: 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385)

emsy 10y ago
Advocating violence and denying a historic fact are two completly different things. You're not allowed to threaten someone with murder either, but that's not a restriction of freedom of speech. Threats of violence are neither ideas nor opinions. However denying the Holocaust is very much an opinion and freedom of speech would mean that I could freely state this opinion and have it judged on the free marketplace of ideas.
- fatbird 10y ago
  Like sedition, denying the Holocaust (and hate speech generally) is a speech act with real world consequences, not merely an opinion. The point remains that freedom of speech is not a binary condition. No one has total freedom of speech; having some restrictions isn't the same as existing under a dictatorship with no freedom of expression at all.
  - emsy 10y ago
    Freedom of speech means free to speak, not free of consequences. That was never my argument. A threat of violence is an attack, and I should expect defensive consequences. Stating the opinion that the Holocaust never happened is not an attack. Nobody is hurt by this, unless people judge it to be a valid idea and act accordingly. But freedom of speech also means to trust people to deem such an idea preposterous. There are instances in history where this didn't work out, but the general tendency indicates it to be a good protocol. The alternative is to forbid certain ideas or opinions to be perpetuated. However, who can assure you that the power to ban certain ideas and opinions will not be used for malicious intent in the future? So, yes, free speech can only be a binary condition.
    - fatbird 10y ago
      Ok, in the US you're also prohibited from obscene speech, which is, according to Miller v. California, expression that '(1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"'. There's no threat of violence here, just community standards that are bother by your artwork, poem, song lyrics or whatnot. Since this is clearly a restriction on your freedom of speech, you clearly have zero freedom of expression in the U.S.

by fatbird 10y ago

emsy 10y ago

Advocating violence and denying a historic fact are two completly different things. You're not allowed to threaten someone with murder either, but that's not a restriction of freedom of speech. Threats of violence are neither ideas nor opinions. However denying the Holocaust is very much an opinion and freedom of speech would mean that I could freely state this opinion and have it judged on the free marketplace of ideas.

fatbird 10y ago
Like sedition, denying the Holocaust (and hate speech generally) is a speech act with real world consequences, not merely an opinion. The point remains that freedom of speech is not a binary condition. No one has total freedom of speech; having some restrictions isn't the same as existing under a dictatorship with no freedom of expression at all.
- emsy 10y ago
  Freedom of speech means free to speak, not free of consequences. That was never my argument. A threat of violence is an attack, and I should expect defensive consequences. Stating the opinion that the Holocaust never happened is not an attack. Nobody is hurt by this, unless people judge it to be a valid idea and act accordingly. But freedom of speech also means to trust people to deem such an idea preposterous. There are instances in history where this didn't work out, but the general tendency indicates it to be a good protocol. The alternative is to forbid certain ideas or opinions to be perpetuated. However, who can assure you that the power to ban certain ideas and opinions will not be used for malicious intent in the future? So, yes, free speech can only be a binary condition.
  - fatbird 10y ago
    Ok, in the US you're also prohibited from obscene speech, which is, according to Miller v. California, expression that '(1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"'. There's no threat of violence here, just community standards that are bother by your artwork, poem, song lyrics or whatnot. Since this is clearly a restriction on your freedom of speech, you clearly have zero freedom of expression in the U.S.