3 ms·

They're not making the distinction because there isn't one. Speech can have all sorts of consequences, from losing a friendship to being imprisoned or executed

They're not making the distinction because there isn't one. Speech can have all sorts of consequences, from losing a friendship to being imprisoned or executed. "Consequences" are a spectrum, and you're simply drawing the line in a different place to other people. > Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. This is a bold claim without any evidence. Certainly it's not the understanding that I grew up with, but I had the good fortune to have a history teacher who liked JS Mill. I see open debate as part of a healthy society. I value the ability to hear perspectives other than my own. That's what "freedom of speech" means to me, not the narrow, American legal definition. > The hypocrisy on this topic by right wingers is pretty crazy when you think about it. I fully agree, and I'm not interested in emulating their hypocrisy.

doctor_eval 6y ago
> This is a bold claim without any evidence. Certainly it's not the understanding that I grew up with, but I had the good fortune to have a history teacher who liked JS Mill. What are you talking about? It doesn’t matter who your history teacher is, the entire concept of free speech is about not locking people up for what they say. That said, here in Australia we actually don’t even have a legally protected right to free speech. We don’t even have a bill of rights. And while I support the right to say anything without being punished by the government, I definitely don’t think that people should be able to broadcast a political message without doing the hard yards of actually, you know, telling the truth and formulating a reasonable argument.
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y ago
  Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. [1] Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship I am confident that my teacher was correct. Mill even shows up in the first article :) > That said, here in Australia we actually don’t even have a legally protected right to free speech. Yes, in countries that inherited the UK's common law system it is rarer for rights to be explicitly iterated. This only adds to the absurdity of claiming that "freedom of speech" is a purely legal concept, mind you.
bengillies 6y ago
> I see open debate as part of a healthy society. I value the ability to hear perspectives other than my own. That's what "freedom of speech" means to me I don't think this open debate you're talking about actually happens much on social media. At least, outside of a few select Subreddits, I've very rarely seen it.

doctor_eval 6y ago

> This is a bold claim without any evidence. Certainly it's not the understanding that I grew up with, but I had the good fortune to have a history teacher who liked JS Mill. What are you talking about? It doesn’t matter who your history teacher is, the entire concept of free speech is about not locking people up for what they say. That said, here in Australia we actually don’t even have a legally protected right to free speech. We don’t even have a bill of rights. And while I support the right to say anything without being punished by the government, I definitely don’t think that people should be able to broadcast a political message without doing the hard yards of actually, you know, telling the truth and formulating a reasonable argument.

ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y ago
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. [1] Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship I am confident that my teacher was correct. Mill even shows up in the first article :) > That said, here in Australia we actually don’t even have a legally protected right to free speech. Yes, in countries that inherited the UK's common law system it is rarer for rights to be explicitly iterated. This only adds to the absurdity of claiming that "freedom of speech" is a purely legal concept, mind you.

bengillies 6y ago

> I see open debate as part of a healthy society. I value the ability to hear perspectives other than my own. That's what "freedom of speech" means to me I don't think this open debate you're talking about actually happens much on social media. At least, outside of a few select Subreddits, I've very rarely seen it.