6 ms·

Freedom of speech is absolute. One cannot outlaw what one does not want to hear. If you want your freedom to speak you are required to let other people speak. I

Freedom of speech is absolute. One cannot outlaw what one does not want to hear. If you want your freedom to speak you are required to let other people speak. It's really that simple. Hate does not go away by outlawing. It only makes martyrs of those impacted by the law. The only way to fight bigotry is with information and enlightenment. It is a fight that will never stop and there are no short cuts. One would have thought we, as a species, would have learned that by now.

smt88 5y ago
There is no society (existing or historical) where freedom of speech was absolute. There have always been consequences for some types of speech. The US conception of freedom of speech is basically, "Your ideological speech is safe from government censorship, but not from anyone else's." And even that has been unevenly supported by courts over time. So while your philosophy is interesting, it seems to have little to do with the way societies actually behave.
- fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
  Consequences and freedom are two separate things don't you think? If you openly state that you hate a certain group of people that will have consequences. I still support your freedom to to so.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    That doesn't make much sense to me. You're not "free" to do X if X is punished by law. By that logic you're also free to kill your neighbor, you'll just suffer consequences.
    - fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
      We are talking about freedom to speak - not freedom to kill.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nybble41 5y ago
      There is a difference between social consequences (e.g. ostracism) and legal consequences (e.g. fines, imprisonment, corporal punishment).
lm28469 5y ago
> Freedom of speech is absolute. Hm, where ? when ? I've heard lot of Americans defending that line as if "freedom of speech" was literally an unconditional universal right given by God to the human race. Freedom of speech is either nonexistent or heavily restricted in most places because total freedom inevitably ends up with other people losing their own freedom/rights. It's illegal and punishable by law to be openly homophobic in France. it's illegal and punishable by law to be openly nazi in Germany.
- fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
  Hating someone is an opinion. It is not an act of violence. I disagree with both of those laws.
  - canadianfella 5y ago
    > I disagree with both of those laws. Most intelligent people agree with your disagreement.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    That's why freedom of speech and freedom of thought are two different things in France. You can have all the opinions you want, you just can't go to the town hall and scream about how you want to exterminate the jews
    - fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
      That's a very big "just". What good is an opinion if you cannot express it?
      - easterncalculus 5y ago
        Recognizing a legal right to think is only a pretext for someone to justify taking that right away. Of course you can think freely, and it's ridiculous to even imply that taking that away is an option through stating so in the law. Obviously homophobia is wrong, the problem with this kind of thinking is that there isn't any real evidence that outlawing speech protects people's rights. Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.

smt88 5y ago

There is no society (existing or historical) where freedom of speech was absolute. There have always been consequences for some types of speech. The US conception of freedom of speech is basically, "Your ideological speech is safe from government censorship, but not from anyone else's." And even that has been unevenly supported by courts over time. So while your philosophy is interesting, it seems to have little to do with the way societies actually behave.

fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
Consequences and freedom are two separate things don't you think? If you openly state that you hate a certain group of people that will have consequences. I still support your freedom to to so.
- lm28469 5y ago
  That doesn't make much sense to me. You're not "free" to do X if X is punished by law. By that logic you're also free to kill your neighbor, you'll just suffer consequences.
  - fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
    We are talking about freedom to speak - not freedom to kill.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nybble41 5y ago
    There is a difference between social consequences (e.g. ostracism) and legal consequences (e.g. fines, imprisonment, corporal punishment).

lm28469 5y ago

> Freedom of speech is absolute. Hm, where ? when ? I've heard lot of Americans defending that line as if "freedom of speech" was literally an unconditional universal right given by God to the human race. Freedom of speech is either nonexistent or heavily restricted in most places because total freedom inevitably ends up with other people losing their own freedom/rights. It's illegal and punishable by law to be openly homophobic in France. it's illegal and punishable by law to be openly nazi in Germany.

fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
Hating someone is an opinion. It is not an act of violence. I disagree with both of those laws.
- canadianfella 5y ago
  > I disagree with both of those laws. Most intelligent people agree with your disagreement.
- lm28469 5y ago
  That's why freedom of speech and freedom of thought are two different things in France. You can have all the opinions you want, you just can't go to the town hall and scream about how you want to exterminate the jews
  - fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
    That's a very big "just". What good is an opinion if you cannot express it?
    - easterncalculus 5y ago
      Recognizing a legal right to think is only a pretext for someone to justify taking that right away. Of course you can think freely, and it's ridiculous to even imply that taking that away is an option through stating so in the law. Obviously homophobia is wrong, the problem with this kind of thinking is that there isn't any real evidence that outlawing speech protects people's rights. Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.