3 ms·
I'll totally accept that "privelege" the wrong way of phrasing it. However, philosophically the difference between what should be an invoidable right and weildi
by 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.
- apotheon 7y agoWe won't lose the right, period. It cannot be lost. Only the power to exercise it can be lost. It's true that people are increasingly eager to infringe the right to express oneself freely by using government to curtail the power to exercise that right. It is true that exercising the right responsibly is important -- because failing to do so involves infringing other rights. In short, there is good reason to differentiate between rights and powers, even though they may apply to the same things. The right is a matter of ethics, and any system of universal ethics doesn't change because of how people behave. The power to exercise a right is subject to social order, and if that power is curtailed the social order is, in that respect, unethical -- but how people behave may change the likelihood of the social order to change in that manner.