3 ms·

> This piece takes as a given that speech is actively limited, and then begins to discuss when and how much. It begins from the most influential theorist of li

> This piece takes as a given that speech is actively limited, and then begins to discuss when and how much. It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill, and his very permissive attitude as to what should be restricted - notably, what causes harm. You'd be hard-pressed to find any theorist who argues that we should both have a state, and that no speech (such as threats, child porn, calls to immediate violence, etc.) should be restricted. Once you admit that any restriction on speech (such as the examples I just mentioned) is available, as it is in the U.S. for instance, it becomes a question of where we draw the line. It is decidedly not easy to widen the extent of those restrictions in the U.S. It takes a lot of agreement to change the constitution.

einpoklum 6y ago
> It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill 1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. 2. Mill, while not a nobleman, was still deeply rooted in the British upper class - a state functionary from a well-off family. This is a guy who advocated for the benevolent dictatorship of Britain over its colonists. Even if you could describe him as "permissive" (which I doubt) - that's already a philosophy for the oppressive masters. They permit, or fail-to-permit. Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. This is because freedom of speech is fundamentally a discussion of rights and their justification. It's a "freedom", situated in a concept of society. The actual article discusses the matter from this point of view. I'm not sure where you expect an article on what is an idea originating in liberal philosophy to start. >Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted. This seems like you have a problem with the state itself - or the idea that the state should have powers to compel, anyway. But once you admit some state power over actions (which you may not do, that's fine) then speech easily falls within this remit too. If you think no power over individuals is permissible - whether to speak or kill - a discussion of liberal rights and freedoms is irrelevant.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > This seems like you have a problem with the state itself That's a straw-man argument. I didn't say no power to prevent speech is legitimate. In recent days, the issue at hand was censorship by social media platforms / large tech companies.
    - claudiawerner 6y ago
      >That's a straw-man argument. Sorry, but I'm really just trying to understand your position on this, so hopefully I can learn something too - not argue against you. I'm not trying to pull a gotcha. >I didn't say no power to prevent speech is legitimate. You said it's "problematic". What did you mean by that?

einpoklum 6y ago

> It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill 1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. 2. Mill, while not a nobleman, was still deeply rooted in the British upper class - a state functionary from a well-off family. This is a guy who advocated for the benevolent dictatorship of Britain over its colonists. Even if you could describe him as "permissive" (which I doubt) - that's already a philosophy for the oppressive masters. They permit, or fail-to-permit. Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out. This is because freedom of speech is fundamentally a discussion of rights and their justification. It's a "freedom", situated in a concept of society. The actual article discusses the matter from this point of view. I'm not sure where you expect an article on what is an idea originating in liberal philosophy to start. >Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted. This seems like you have a problem with the state itself - or the idea that the state should have powers to compel, anyway. But once you admit some state power over actions (which you may not do, that's fine) then speech easily falls within this remit too. If you think no power over individuals is permissible - whether to speak or kill - a discussion of liberal rights and freedoms is irrelevant.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > This seems like you have a problem with the state itself That's a straw-man argument. I didn't say no power to prevent speech is legitimate. In recent days, the issue at hand was censorship by social media platforms / large tech companies.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >That's a straw-man argument. Sorry, but I'm really just trying to understand your position on this, so hopefully I can learn something too - not argue against you. I'm not trying to pull a gotcha. >I didn't say no power to prevent speech is legitimate. You said it's "problematic". What did you mean by that?