3 ms·

You just listed off a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that you support, so I'm not sure where you're standing here. Is it your contention that the curren

by hsod 9y ago

You just listed off a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that you support, so I'm not sure where you're standing here. Is it your contention that the current collective US jurisprudence on free speech restrictions represents the platonic ideal of Free Speech, such that by defending it you are a "free speech absolutist"?

KGIII 9y ago
If the speech is lawful, then I support it. Some speech is considered unlawful and that I don't support. That is a longer subject, however. I don't think we need 'free speech zones' at political rallies. The DNC started that. I don't like how SCOTUS moved the free speech zone away from the building. Things like that. Lawful speech should be the default. Unlawful speech is afforded no such protections. I'm happy with those limits. Some speech is legitimately harmful. Read the whoe thread. Even read the people I replied to. I'll try to help you out, if you want.
- hsod 9y ago
  I read the whole thread, thanks. I'm pointing out that your support of only speech that is currently considered lawful (and by implication, your support of restrictions on free speech that are currently codified into US law) means you are no more a free speech absolutist than the person you are arguing with. It invalidates your entire argumentative posture throughout this thread IMO.
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    I don't think it's fair to claim KGIII's entire argument has been invalidated anymore than it's fair to characterize it as absolutist (b/c illegal speech was not supported in any of this thread by KGIII). In the US, maximizing liberty is a priority, but minimizing violence is also a priority; so, these things both have to be considered. If Australia (or any other country) does not share this prioritization for liberty, that is up to their citizens. But, the US Constitution is still the law of the land here in the US, and no matter what those with authoritarian tendencies want for their countries, we will continue to prioritize liberty.

by hsod 9y ago

KGIII 9y ago

If the speech is lawful, then I support it. Some speech is considered unlawful and that I don't support. That is a longer subject, however. I don't think we need 'free speech zones' at political rallies. The DNC started that. I don't like how SCOTUS moved the free speech zone away from the building. Things like that. Lawful speech should be the default. Unlawful speech is afforded no such protections. I'm happy with those limits. Some speech is legitimately harmful. Read the whoe thread. Even read the people I replied to. I'll try to help you out, if you want.

hsod 9y ago
I read the whole thread, thanks. I'm pointing out that your support of only speech that is currently considered lawful (and by implication, your support of restrictions on free speech that are currently codified into US law) means you are no more a free speech absolutist than the person you are arguing with. It invalidates your entire argumentative posture throughout this thread IMO.
- libertyEQ 9y ago
  I don't think it's fair to claim KGIII's entire argument has been invalidated anymore than it's fair to characterize it as absolutist (b/c illegal speech was not supported in any of this thread by KGIII). In the US, maximizing liberty is a priority, but minimizing violence is also a priority; so, these things both have to be considered. If Australia (or any other country) does not share this prioritization for liberty, that is up to their citizens. But, the US Constitution is still the law of the land here in the US, and no matter what those with authoritarian tendencies want for their countries, we will continue to prioritize liberty.