3 ms·

Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it. But so you can live withou

Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it. But so you can live without the right of free movement, without equality before the law, without freedom, without right to being alive, and this is actually how most of our history was. These rights are a rather recent innovation. But should you? Should we? Eroding human rights only leads to dystopia. Human rights are an innovation of civilisation, of progress. Not being able to see that makes me very sad.

Daishiman 7y ago
But rights don't live in a vacuum. The US has established that fighting words aren't free speech. Everywhere around we've recognized that speech has limits, and unlimited speech can be harassment, an invitation to destroy and much more. Speech isn't just a debate between intellectuals sitting in a lounge arguing about things in a wholly experimental matter. And saying that it is inalienable or innate without considering its true limits is merely a thought-terminating cliche that doesn't delve into the deeper considerations. And as mentioned above, free speech is just one right among many, sometimes in direct conflict with others. Thus, the resolution and primacy of rights is something left to courts, philosophers, and representatives. Germany has decided that your right to speech isn't higher than spreading hateful ideologies. The limit as to what constitutes a hateful ideology isn't firmly grounded, but so far courts there have acted in a consistent and pragmatic matter. I'd argue that the speech of people whose idea of speech is promoting the end of a race isn't really something we care about, and I can certainly construct a moral framework where their speech is fairly irrelevant and I don't think most of us are going to lose sleep over it.

Daishiman 7y ago

But rights don't live in a vacuum. The US has established that fighting words aren't free speech. Everywhere around we've recognized that speech has limits, and unlimited speech can be harassment, an invitation to destroy and much more. Speech isn't just a debate between intellectuals sitting in a lounge arguing about things in a wholly experimental matter. And saying that it is inalienable or innate without considering its true limits is merely a thought-terminating cliche that doesn't delve into the deeper considerations. And as mentioned above, free speech is just one right among many, sometimes in direct conflict with others. Thus, the resolution and primacy of rights is something left to courts, philosophers, and representatives. Germany has decided that your right to speech isn't higher than spreading hateful ideologies. The limit as to what constitutes a hateful ideology isn't firmly grounded, but so far courts there have acted in a consistent and pragmatic matter. I'd argue that the speech of people whose idea of speech is promoting the end of a race isn't really something we care about, and I can certainly construct a moral framework where their speech is fairly irrelevant and I don't think most of us are going to lose sleep over it.