5 ms·

Sorry for the harsh language, but that's fucking ridiculous in this context. Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments

by mrout 9y ago

Sorry for the harsh language, but that's fucking ridiculous in this context. Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.

nerdponx 9y ago
You're wrong too --- but only in my opinion. What free speech really "exists for" is hard to pin down[1]. It's actually an interesting legal perspective. These are unelected officials, appointed by an indirectly elected official (albeit confirmed by directly elected ones) interacting directly with the public. It's a bizarre reversal of the Jeffersonian republic, like a direct democracy nested deep inside a republic. The fact that the poster is totally wrong does not alone make the idea worth censoring. If you don't listen to people who disagree with you, how can you hope to engage them in debate? Case in point: you got downvoted so many times you were [flagged] and [dead], and I vouched for you. 1) You didn't deserve it. 2) I wanted to bring you back so I could make the point that, under your idea of free speech, you'd still be [dead]. [1]: https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-...
- mrout 9y ago
  I didn't say that it wouldn't be protected as free speech by the law, or that it wasn't 'valid speech'. I'm saying that the intent of free speech is not that being able to say whatever you like without consequence is an inherently good thing, but that peoples' abilities to comment on proposed laws (and comment on politics, current events, policy, law, statute, government and non-governmental action etc.) without fear of retribution is good for society. It was implied that (implying that (being silenced by others in a discussion forum because you hold the view that people giving their opinions is 'mob rule') is a bad thing) was upholding the principles of free speech. Again, I think this is silly. I don't want to engage someone that views public participation in democracy as a bad thing. That's a ridiculous view, and I happily would downvote him if I had enough karma to see the downvote button.
tn135 9y ago
> Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard. You are flat out WRONG. Free speech exists for all sort of speech including mocking, ridiculing and being outright stupid and retarded too. > Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard. Free speech has nothing to do with policy, government, state or laws. It is an independent right that exists for no specific purpose other than itself. And in this case it appears to be "free speech for you as long as you voice your support for me".
- mrout 9y ago
  I didn't say he didn't deserve free speech.

by mrout 9y ago

nerdponx 9y ago

You're wrong too --- but only in my opinion. What free speech really "exists for" is hard to pin down[1]. It's actually an interesting legal perspective. These are unelected officials, appointed by an indirectly elected official (albeit confirmed by directly elected ones) interacting directly with the public. It's a bizarre reversal of the Jeffersonian republic, like a direct democracy nested deep inside a republic. The fact that the poster is totally wrong does not alone make the idea worth censoring. If you don't listen to people who disagree with you, how can you hope to engage them in debate? Case in point: you got downvoted so many times you were [flagged] and [dead], and I vouched for you. 1) You didn't deserve it. 2) I wanted to bring you back so I could make the point that, under your idea of free speech, you'd still be [dead]. [1]: https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-...

mrout 9y ago
I didn't say that it wouldn't be protected as free speech by the law, or that it wasn't 'valid speech'. I'm saying that the intent of free speech is not that being able to say whatever you like without consequence is an inherently good thing, but that peoples' abilities to comment on proposed laws (and comment on politics, current events, policy, law, statute, government and non-governmental action etc.) without fear of retribution is good for society. It was implied that (implying that (being silenced by others in a discussion forum because you hold the view that people giving their opinions is 'mob rule') is a bad thing) was upholding the principles of free speech. Again, I think this is silly. I don't want to engage someone that views public participation in democracy as a bad thing. That's a ridiculous view, and I happily would downvote him if I had enough karma to see the downvote button.

tn135 9y ago

> Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard. You are flat out WRONG. Free speech exists for all sort of speech including mocking, ridiculing and being outright stupid and retarded too. > Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard. Free speech has nothing to do with policy, government, state or laws. It is an independent right that exists for no specific purpose other than itself. And in this case it appears to be "free speech for you as long as you voice your support for me".

mrout 9y ago
I didn't say he didn't deserve free speech.