3 ms·

Free speech is a negative right, the only kind of right possible to have without forcing someone else to provide for your rights. Should government provide you

Free speech is a negative right, the only kind of right possible to have without forcing someone else to provide for your rights. Should government provide you a book and a pen to write your anti-government book? That is equivalent of internet. If I chose to live on top of some mountain should government spend $$$ to stretch a line to my mountain ?

Klinky 9y ago
Free speech is not a "negative right". There are definitely burdens placed on others to maintain it. Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut, and then threatening you with violence if you open it? That is the reality in many places. Those who speak up often pay a heavy cost without some sort of protection. Even in places where forms of free speech are accepted, the cost to maintain it is high. Perhaps the libertarian concept of free speech is the "ability to talk to oneself in an empty room", which is pathetic.
- VeronicaJJ123 9y ago
  > ability to talk to oneself in an empty room Not sure why it is pathetic because you can always bring people in who are interesting in listening. What is your concept of "free speech" then ? Going into other people's home and shouting ? > Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut The constitution and courts. If both those options fail it is reasonable to pick up arms against the government too.
  - Klinky 9y ago
    >Not sure why it is pathetic because you can always bring people in who are interesting in listening. "The government has banned congregating, and one of the people you're meeting with in secret is a mole who is going to rat you out to the government anyways. There is also a network of listening equipment installed in various properties to monitor citizen behavior." That isn't fantasy, it has really happened in some societies. The point is, if the society you're part of does not value freedom of speech, it can be squashed. One can speak their mind, but with the threat of dire consequences, their mouth remains shut, and their "right to free speech" suppressed. If a right is suppressed, who is burdened with protecting that right? No one? Is the above example of an oppressive society acceptable with the concept of free speech being a negative right? If so, the concept of negative rights is useless in a realistic context, as it is merely being pedantic and does not actually offer a better alternative. With a bar so low, terrible outcomes become "acceptable". Typically free speech means you can speak your mind in a public forum without fear of harm. This includes dissenting views of the current government. While others may actually attempt to harm you, laws are in place to make those parties potentially reconsider taking such actions. >The constitution and courts. If both those options fail it is reasonable to pick up arms against the government too. Maintaining a constitution and court system is of no burden to anyone? So your form of free speech requires the forced service of judges and legislators? If arms are required, who is to provide them? Are you going to force gunsmiths to provide everyone with a gun?

Klinky 9y ago

Free speech is not a "negative right". There are definitely burdens placed on others to maintain it. Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut, and then threatening you with violence if you open it? That is the reality in many places. Those who speak up often pay a heavy cost without some sort of protection. Even in places where forms of free speech are accepted, the cost to maintain it is high. Perhaps the libertarian concept of free speech is the "ability to talk to oneself in an empty room", which is pathetic.

VeronicaJJ123 9y ago
> ability to talk to oneself in an empty room Not sure why it is pathetic because you can always bring people in who are interesting in listening. What is your concept of "free speech" then ? Going into other people's home and shouting ? > Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut The constitution and courts. If both those options fail it is reasonable to pick up arms against the government too.
- Klinky 9y ago
  >Not sure why it is pathetic because you can always bring people in who are interesting in listening. "The government has banned congregating, and one of the people you're meeting with in secret is a mole who is going to rat you out to the government anyways. There is also a network of listening equipment installed in various properties to monitor citizen behavior." That isn't fantasy, it has really happened in some societies. The point is, if the society you're part of does not value freedom of speech, it can be squashed. One can speak their mind, but with the threat of dire consequences, their mouth remains shut, and their "right to free speech" suppressed. If a right is suppressed, who is burdened with protecting that right? No one? Is the above example of an oppressive society acceptable with the concept of free speech being a negative right? If so, the concept of negative rights is useless in a realistic context, as it is merely being pedantic and does not actually offer a better alternative. With a bar so low, terrible outcomes become "acceptable". Typically free speech means you can speak your mind in a public forum without fear of harm. This includes dissenting views of the current government. While others may actually attempt to harm you, laws are in place to make those parties potentially reconsider taking such actions. >The constitution and courts. If both those options fail it is reasonable to pick up arms against the government too. Maintaining a constitution and court system is of no burden to anyone? So your form of free speech requires the forced service of judges and legislators? If arms are required, who is to provide them? Are you going to force gunsmiths to provide everyone with a gun?