4 ms·
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 co
by 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 agoOk, 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.