2 ms·
"it could easily be the case that when such an issue comes to trial, you can present your evidence and arguments." Trial? Do you mean like in a court of law?
by kebman 6y ago
"it could easily be the case that when such an issue comes to trial, you can present your evidence and arguments."
Trial? Do you mean like in a court of law?
The whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the state from hauling you to court just for making some utterance. Moreover, you shouldn't be asked to defend your views at the mercy of judges who threaten you with a loss of your freedom if you are deemed to have the "wrong" ideas. That doesn't only threaten your own freedom, but democracy itself.
Priority, undue or not, does not matter, and it assumes that someone is the arbiter of that priority, whereas the idea of free speech claims that the final arbiter is truth itself, as it will conquer all if we just give people the freedom to find it. The maxim that comes out of this, is that the only way we can possibly find the truth, is by allowing ideas to compete freely, by giving people as much freedom of speech as possible, because if we don't, then lies will prevail.
- claudiawerner 6y ago>The whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the state from hauling you to court just for making some utterance And the whole point of the legislature and judiciary is to prevent passage of laws which would allow the executive branch to haul you to court for just "some utterance" - but speech is not in itself always just "an utterance". >That doesn't only threaten your own freedom, but democracy itself. Arguably, democracy is undermined through some uses of free speech which in the U.S. in particular cannot be legislated. the OP article has a whole section on this as it relates to porn or hate speech, and the arguments made therein. >is that the only way we can possibly find the truth, is by allowing ideas to compete freely This may be true of "ideas" as abstract entities, but ideas take concrete form in particular acts of speech and modes of expression - the real picture isn't a heavenly battle of ideas, it's the real effects of speech - only some of which carry an idea. Child porn or threats both carry 'ideas', or they can be imbued with the intention to carry an idea. This does not mean they should not be censored. >as much freedom of speech as possible, because if we don't, then lies will prevail. Is there empirical evidence confirming this in the context of the modern populace in the information age?