3 ms·

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you've got that backwards: freedom of speech is a right, that a government ought to recognize. "Protected spe

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you've got that backwards: freedom of speech is a right, that a government ought to recognize. "Protected speech" makes it sound like the only speech we're allowed is what is specifically allocated to us.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Which is the reality. “Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel should be absolute, and that all other laws must bend and give way to accommodate it. One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.
- generalizations 6y ago
  > no man wants...many do feel Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold. If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter of what is right, or what rights humans possess "inalienably". The law only enforces and protects those rights (since it's inefficient for each person to defend their own rights against everyone else: "I will have my attourney at my trial, I challenge you to duel if you disagree"). If freedom of speech is impinged, then a human right has been trampled upon. If a private individual forces someone else to be silent, they are morally in the wrong, even though there's no law against it. If the US government did it, then the US acted against its constitution and broke a moral principle, if not the laws on the books.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Do you believe it should be legal to make death threats, print libel and slander that harm a man's reputation, spread around pictures taken of others in the shower without their consent, and publish stolen personal information? If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.
    - generalizations 6y ago
      > If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law. It's a cute 'gotcha', but you're not actually saying anything that relates to what I said. I said 'moral principle', not 'absolute', and you continue to refer to 'the law'. You're not distinguishing between the laws the government decides upon, and the moral principles we use to evaluate good laws and bad ones. From the outset, I said that there is a difference between saying that freedom of speech is something the government allocates to us, and something which the government ought to allow. Do you think the government gets to decide what we are, and are not, allowed to say?
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        I don't believe in morality; it's an indefinable and unfalsifiable concept I simply said that the claim of believing in “freedom of speech, except where one not” is an empty, useless, and trivial statement. Everyone believes in “freedom of speech, except where he draw the line”.
        generalizations 6y ago
        Where freedom of speech falls in the hierarchy of rights is not my concern. What is my concern, is who gets to choose what that hierarchy is and where freedom of speech exists on it. I'm arguing that the government is not who gets to determine what that hierarchy is, and thereby determine what gets to superceed freedom of speech.
- jejkfmgmgk 6y ago
  > it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. The whole point of the constitution is to put a limit on the law. The government cannot pass a law forbidding a certain kind of speech as it would be unconstitutional. > One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law. You have it backwards. The law can dictate whatever it wants so long as it does not thread over the bounds of the constitution.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Which is the reality. “Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel should be absolute, and that all other laws must bend and give way to accommodate it. One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.

generalizations 6y ago
> no man wants...many do feel Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold. If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter of what is right, or what rights humans possess "inalienably". The law only enforces and protects those rights (since it's inefficient for each person to defend their own rights against everyone else: "I will have my attourney at my trial, I challenge you to duel if you disagree"). If freedom of speech is impinged, then a human right has been trampled upon. If a private individual forces someone else to be silent, they are morally in the wrong, even though there's no law against it. If the US government did it, then the US acted against its constitution and broke a moral principle, if not the laws on the books.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Do you believe it should be legal to make death threats, print libel and slander that harm a man's reputation, spread around pictures taken of others in the shower without their consent, and publish stolen personal information? If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    > If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law. It's a cute 'gotcha', but you're not actually saying anything that relates to what I said. I said 'moral principle', not 'absolute', and you continue to refer to 'the law'. You're not distinguishing between the laws the government decides upon, and the moral principles we use to evaluate good laws and bad ones. From the outset, I said that there is a difference between saying that freedom of speech is something the government allocates to us, and something which the government ought to allow. Do you think the government gets to decide what we are, and are not, allowed to say?
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      I don't believe in morality; it's an indefinable and unfalsifiable concept I simply said that the claim of believing in “freedom of speech, except where one not” is an empty, useless, and trivial statement. Everyone believes in “freedom of speech, except where he draw the line”.
      - generalizations 6y ago
        Where freedom of speech falls in the hierarchy of rights is not my concern. What is my concern, is who gets to choose what that hierarchy is and where freedom of speech exists on it. I'm arguing that the government is not who gets to determine what that hierarchy is, and thereby determine what gets to superceed freedom of speech.
jejkfmgmgk 6y ago
> it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. The whole point of the constitution is to put a limit on the law. The government cannot pass a law forbidding a certain kind of speech as it would be unconstitutional. > One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law. You have it backwards. The law can dictate whatever it wants so long as it does not thread over the bounds of the constitution.