4 ms·

So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's people's

by mikejb 8y ago

So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's people's freedom fighters, I won't have to suffer repercussions? The claimed interpretation of "absolute free speech" helps drive the narrative of "we're better than everyone else", but both quoted concepts are bullshit.

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
You would not be imprisoned. You could at least try the "fire in a crowded theater argument." Though even that isn't truly limited today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- mikejb 8y ago
  Imprisonment isn't the only limiting factor in free speech. Direct or indirect financial impact works well too (e.g. you'll miss your flight because we deem your opinion suspicious and have to investigate you).
olleromam91 8y ago
Your second concept is something that every human believes in, whether you want to accept that or not. We're selfish by nature. We choose who we like and who we don't like.
- mikejb 8y ago
  Are you referencing to the "we're better than you?" - then I have to disagree, strongly. Most people I meet can differentiate between personal preference and objective superiority. None of the people I know well enough to say would argue that the country they live in is "the best" or "number one". They like it there, but have their eyes open enough to see that other nations solve some problems better,and that there is no absolute "best country".
travisoneill1 8y ago
You won't be charged with a crime. In France you could be: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-differently https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-d... This is a non-trivial difference.
- mikejb 8y ago
  You wouldn't be charged, but you'd suffer consequences. You'd peobablt miss your flight because your opinion is considered dangerous and needs to be investigated, and maybe you even end up on one of many no-fly lists.

by mikejb 8y ago

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago

You would not be imprisoned. You could at least try the "fire in a crowded theater argument." Though even that isn't truly limited today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

mikejb 8y ago
Imprisonment isn't the only limiting factor in free speech. Direct or indirect financial impact works well too (e.g. you'll miss your flight because we deem your opinion suspicious and have to investigate you).

olleromam91 8y ago

Your second concept is something that every human believes in, whether you want to accept that or not. We're selfish by nature. We choose who we like and who we don't like.

mikejb 8y ago
Are you referencing to the "we're better than you?" - then I have to disagree, strongly. Most people I meet can differentiate between personal preference and objective superiority. None of the people I know well enough to say would argue that the country they live in is "the best" or "number one". They like it there, but have their eyes open enough to see that other nations solve some problems better,and that there is no absolute "best country".

travisoneill1 8y ago

You won't be charged with a crime. In France you could be: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-differently https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-d... This is a non-trivial difference.

mikejb 8y ago
You wouldn't be charged, but you'd suffer consequences. You'd peobablt miss your flight because your opinion is considered dangerous and needs to be investigated, and maybe you even end up on one of many no-fly lists.