3 ms·
> slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence? They're not saying that what speech qualifies as free speech has no exceptions whatsoever[0]. T
by a1369209993 6y ago
> slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence?
They're not saying that what speech qualifies as free speech has no exceptions whatsoever[0]. They're saying that you can't do a end run around the entire concept of free speech by laundering your enforcement under the vague heading of "consequences", when those consequences are a result of your enforcement.
0: It should have as few exceptions as possible, of course, but if nothing else you shouldn't be able to get away with murder by claiming that the nerve impulses to your trigger finger are free speech, and that shouldn't be a property of nerve impulses versus other ways of transmitting information.
- krapp 6y ago>They're not saying that free speech has no exceptions whatsoever. That is literally what they're saying - "Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences" precisely means free speech has no exceptions whatsoever, because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech. Had they said free speech should have as few exceptions as possible, they would have.
- a1369209993 6y ago> because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech. Sorry, should have been more explicit - edited to clarify that I was talking about exceptions to what qualifies as free speech in the first place, not exceptions to what consequences constitute restriction.