3 ms·
> Correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be saying that free speech can't exist without democracy. No, parent is saying freedom of speech is a consequence of dem
by Pyramus 5y ago
> Correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be saying that free speech can't exist without democracy.
No, parent is saying freedom of speech is a consequence of democracy, not that one wouldn't exist without the other or that they are synonymous.
One can, as you have, construct and imagine all kinds of political systems where one exists without the other (e.g. Greece 400 BC, benevolent dictator etc). This leads to rather contrived arguments that miss the point at hand: Freedom of speech has almost always been a consequence of modern democracy.
Your flippant response in the last paragraph makes me believe you aren't convinced in your argumentation either.
- brigandish 5y ago> No, parent is saying freedom of speech is a consequence of democracy Then you'll need to explain these questions: > What prior-to-democracy system would lead toward that free speech? Or do you believe free speech exists by itself in nature, prior to any system? Without them I might agree. With them, the inference is impossible to ignore. > Freedom of speech has almost always been a consequence of modern democracy. No one was saying anything else. It's starting to look like you aren't going to shine a light on what I've missed but what you've missed. > Your flippant response in the last paragraph makes me believe you aren't convinced in your argumentation either. Flippancy is a manifestation of doubt, now there's a claim I've not heard before. The world is indeed full of wonder and mystery!