3 ms·

What? How is that an attack on “free” speech. I’m saying that people abuse free speech. Its a privilege to be able to voice your opinions openly. I’m not sugges

by sbuk 7y ago

What? How is that an attack on “free” speech. I’m saying that people abuse free speech. Its a privilege to be able to voice your opinions openly. I’m not suggesting it should be curtailed, quite the opposite — it should be revered and treated with respect which, in the age of the internet, it isn’t. Instead of jerking your knee and hitting that downvote button, as several of you have you, think about it.

andrewzah 7y ago
Free Speech does not exist for us to say nice or reverent things about each other. I would say the entire point of free speech as a concept is to be able to say things that other people may not like, or approve of, or get offended by. Discourse should be civil, ideally, but there are times when one needs to say something that isn't civil. Can this get abused by "freeze peach" types? Yes. However I find this a minimal cost when I consider that I won't arbitrarily get jailed by my government for saying something.
- sbuk 7y ago
  You have missed the point I'm making. I actually agree with what you say, but I'm suggesting taking a different point of view, and placing ethical and moral value on speech, by dropping the clearly emotive "free" and replacing it with "privelege". Why privelege? Because living in a society that values expression wouldn't function without being able to express ideas openly. I'm suggesting that the majority of people misunderstand the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech and that is what needs adressing.
  - andrewzah 7y ago
    Calling it a privilege implies someone is capable of giving that privilege (and thus is also capable of taking it away). Free speech is a natural right, and has nothing to do with privilege, even if not every country recognizes this. This terminology is an extremely important distinction when it comes to defining the powers of government. It's not that the government is giving us the privilege of free speech: the government literally cannot limit our natural freedoms except in the manners described in the constitution where it has been authorized (by the people). > placing ethical and moral value on speech Ethics and morals are totally arbitrary, and are the last thing I want governing free speech. All we can do is let people exercise their free speech (or not), and decide whether or not to listen, etc. After all, it's only protection from the government, not from private businesses or individuals' reactions. The courts can decide if it falls under non-protected classes of speech like hate speech, etc.
    - apotheon 7y ago
      The statement that free speech is a right is, itself, an ethical statement. Claiming that ethics is arbitrary is basically saying that free speech is inviolable is an arbitrary claim that holds no weight. I'm constantly annoyed by the unfounded post-modernist claims of arbitrariness and subjectivity in ethics. The truth is that ethicality is a "Hard Problem" of philosophy (also an oft-devalued field, but one without which there would be no math or science). I agree with both you and Voltaire, that freedom of speech is an important right that is "inviolable". That is, it posible to infringe that right, but doing so is wrong, and infringement of free expression is ethically subject to defense against the aggression represented by that infringement. In short, even if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about with your use of the word "ethics", and even if you contradict yourself by saying that free speech is a right (an ethical claim) and that ethics "are totally arbitrary", I fully agree with your basic assertion that free speech is a right, and anyone who wants to claim otherwise had better be able to provide a valid, deductive argument from apodictisms (or at least agreeable axioms) -- especially because I can provide such an argument in support of free speech -- before I'll give that claim the time of day. Just to restate, in brief: 1. Yes, you're absolutely correct in your statement that free speech is a right, and it should be defended, and not deprecated by claims it's a "privilege". Yes, there is responsibility associated with that right, but that doesn't make the right into a "privilege". 2. Your statement that free speech is a right is an ethical claim, so maybe you should re-examine your dismissal of ethics. Thanks in advance for thinking it through.
      - sbuk 7y ago
        I'll totally accept that "privelege" the wrong way of phrasing it. However, philosophically the difference between what should be an invoidable right and weilding that right is decided by the commons, or at least it is how it is at the moment. I'm trying, admittedly poorly, to reframe that. Free speech comes with great power. That power is open to abuse. The times in which we live see the responsibility of weilding that power because disgregarded because it is an inalienable right. I'm saying that we have freedom of speech becasue of the societal structure that the Western hemisphere has, but it is being abused by the commons, the press and the state. If all don't show it the respect it deserves were are going to lose it, an the power that comes with it, in its very name.

by sbuk 7y ago

andrewzah 7y ago

Free Speech does not exist for us to say nice or reverent things about each other. I would say the entire point of free speech as a concept is to be able to say things that other people may not like, or approve of, or get offended by. Discourse should be civil, ideally, but there are times when one needs to say something that isn't civil. Can this get abused by "freeze peach" types? Yes. However I find this a minimal cost when I consider that I won't arbitrarily get jailed by my government for saying something.

sbuk 7y ago
You have missed the point I'm making. I actually agree with what you say, but I'm suggesting taking a different point of view, and placing ethical and moral value on speech, by dropping the clearly emotive "free" and replacing it with "privelege". Why privelege? Because living in a society that values expression wouldn't function without being able to express ideas openly. I'm suggesting that the majority of people misunderstand the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech and that is what needs adressing.
- andrewzah 7y ago
  Calling it a privilege implies someone is capable of giving that privilege (and thus is also capable of taking it away). Free speech is a natural right, and has nothing to do with privilege, even if not every country recognizes this. This terminology is an extremely important distinction when it comes to defining the powers of government. It's not that the government is giving us the privilege of free speech: the government literally cannot limit our natural freedoms except in the manners described in the constitution where it has been authorized (by the people). > placing ethical and moral value on speech Ethics and morals are totally arbitrary, and are the last thing I want governing free speech. All we can do is let people exercise their free speech (or not), and decide whether or not to listen, etc. After all, it's only protection from the government, not from private businesses or individuals' reactions. The courts can decide if it falls under non-protected classes of speech like hate speech, etc.
  - apotheon 7y ago
    The statement that free speech is a right is, itself, an ethical statement. Claiming that ethics is arbitrary is basically saying that free speech is inviolable is an arbitrary claim that holds no weight. I'm constantly annoyed by the unfounded post-modernist claims of arbitrariness and subjectivity in ethics. The truth is that ethicality is a "Hard Problem" of philosophy (also an oft-devalued field, but one without which there would be no math or science). I agree with both you and Voltaire, that freedom of speech is an important right that is "inviolable". That is, it posible to infringe that right, but doing so is wrong, and infringement of free expression is ethically subject to defense against the aggression represented by that infringement. In short, even if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about with your use of the word "ethics", and even if you contradict yourself by saying that free speech is a right (an ethical claim) and that ethics "are totally arbitrary", I fully agree with your basic assertion that free speech is a right, and anyone who wants to claim otherwise had better be able to provide a valid, deductive argument from apodictisms (or at least agreeable axioms) -- especially because I can provide such an argument in support of free speech -- before I'll give that claim the time of day. Just to restate, in brief: 1. Yes, you're absolutely correct in your statement that free speech is a right, and it should be defended, and not deprecated by claims it's a "privilege". Yes, there is responsibility associated with that right, but that doesn't make the right into a "privilege". 2. Your statement that free speech is a right is an ethical claim, so maybe you should re-examine your dismissal of ethics. Thanks in advance for thinking it through.
    - sbuk 7y ago
      I'll totally accept that "privelege" the wrong way of phrasing it. However, philosophically the difference between what should be an invoidable right and weilding that right is decided by the commons, or at least it is how it is at the moment. I'm trying, admittedly poorly, to reframe that. Free speech comes with great power. That power is open to abuse. The times in which we live see the responsibility of weilding that power because disgregarded because it is an inalienable right. I'm saying that we have freedom of speech becasue of the societal structure that the Western hemisphere has, but it is being abused by the commons, the press and the state. If all don't show it the respect it deserves were are going to lose it, an the power that comes with it, in its very name.