3 ms·

In these debates I always struggle with the idea that free speech exists in the first place. Taking the Wikipedia definition: > Freedom of speech is the right

In these debates I always struggle with the idea that free speech exists in the first place. Taking the Wikipedia definition: > Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. We all know that this isn't true in almost any country with the resources for mass surveillance. People get put on watch lists and interrogated at airports for years because of their beliefs or circumstances. What people often seem to mean is speech free of social consequences. For example, I should be able to say that your wife is ugly, and then be outraged (and tout myself as a victim) when your drink is in my face. This is simply childish entitlement.

DanAndersen 10y ago
>when your drink is in my face That's assault. One could quite easily say that demanding the ability to hit people with something because you don't like what they say is "childish entitlement." There's a reason why public protests are governed around "touching/hitting an opponent" as the line to not be crossed, and why pepper-spraying someone is for self-defense and not for disagreement. "Social consequences" should mean disassociation or loss of reputation -- not physical attack. It's a dangerous precedent to allow the state to lose that monopoly on the use of physical violence; that way lies lynch mobs. As to your point about surveillance states and ideological watchlists, I agree with you that those are often violations of the principle of free speech. I'd rather argue against those rather than use them as precedent to throw the whole thing away.