3 ms·

Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can'

by imgabe 6y ago

Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved.

wahern 6y ago
> Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? No. > Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved. I agree. I'm just not sure what needs to be improved, or why. The discourse around free speech has become, for lack of a better word, incoherent. The only thing I have a substantial degree of certainty about is that most people, including an unfortunately large number of supposed legal scholars, have a very ahistorical notion of (or at least unjustified certitude about) what the term has meant politically and legally and the significance it was given relative to other rights.[1] And while history shouldn't dictate our decisions, its unfolding is often a good reference for understanding the interplay of various ideas. The loss of that reference is the loss of an anchor that could help keep the discourse grounded and constructive. Instead "free speech" has become a vehicle into which we shove a diverse array of beliefs and aspirations, which by dint of our fetishization of the Bill of Rights then become unquestionable and even sacred. [1] For a hint at what might have been on the minds of the drafters we could look at, for example, Chapter VI, The Right to Freedom of Discussion in A.V. Dicey's famous Introduction to the Study of The Law of the [British] Constitution. I don't mean to suggest that British law was the same in the late 19th century as in 18th century America (or 18th century Britain, for that matter), but Dicey's take on the issue as well as his distinctions between British and French law suggest that American developments (most quite late, occurring in the mid 20th century), such as giving political speech and journalists special protections from, e.g., libel law, or eliding the distinctions between commercial and individual speech, might partially conflict with both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment as originally conceived. I could provide many other examples that contradict the history of free speech in the U.S. as we commonly assume it. None of which to say I think our modern conception is inherently bad; only that it is, indeed, modern, and in many respects can be traced in a direct line back to--or through--Louis Brandeis (i.e. market place of ideas, truth will conquer lies in a Darwinian struggle). So cries about the sky falling seem misplaced.

by imgabe 6y ago

Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved.

wahern 6y ago

> Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? No. > Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved. I agree. I'm just not sure what needs to be improved, or why. The discourse around free speech has become, for lack of a better word, incoherent. The only thing I have a substantial degree of certainty about is that most people, including an unfortunately large number of supposed legal scholars, have a very ahistorical notion of (or at least unjustified certitude about) what the term has meant politically and legally and the significance it was given relative to other rights.[1] And while history shouldn't dictate our decisions, its unfolding is often a good reference for understanding the interplay of various ideas. The loss of that reference is the loss of an anchor that could help keep the discourse grounded and constructive. Instead "free speech" has become a vehicle into which we shove a diverse array of beliefs and aspirations, which by dint of our fetishization of the Bill of Rights then become unquestionable and even sacred. [1] For a hint at what might have been on the minds of the drafters we could look at, for example, Chapter VI, The Right to Freedom of Discussion in A.V. Dicey's famous Introduction to the Study of The Law of the [British] Constitution. I don't mean to suggest that British law was the same in the late 19th century as in 18th century America (or 18th century Britain, for that matter), but Dicey's take on the issue as well as his distinctions between British and French law suggest that American developments (most quite late, occurring in the mid 20th century), such as giving political speech and journalists special protections from, e.g., libel law, or eliding the distinctions between commercial and individual speech, might partially conflict with both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment as originally conceived. I could provide many other examples that contradict the history of free speech in the U.S. as we commonly assume it. None of which to say I think our modern conception is inherently bad; only that it is, indeed, modern, and in many respects can be traced in a direct line back to--or through--Louis Brandeis (i.e. market place of ideas, truth will conquer lies in a Darwinian struggle). So cries about the sky falling seem misplaced.