4 ms·

Free speech absolutism has literally never been a thing anywhere on this planet at any time in the history of the world because it is neither thoughtful nor pra

Free speech absolutism has literally never been a thing anywhere on this planet at any time in the history of the world because it is neither thoughtful nor practical.

revscat 5y ago
I am quite certain they do not oppose laws against making false statements to investigators, lying about income/losses on tax returns or shareholder reports, making violent threats, and etc. As you say, there are no free speech absolutists.
- paskozdilar 5y ago
  Those things are unlawful because of the effect they directly cause to the real world. Speech, in general, is just sharing information - it does not cause any direct effect on the real world (actions of other people with whom we have shared the information do not count as direct effects, or otherwise the legal system would get really messy).
  - vharuck 5y ago
    >Speech, in general, is just sharing information - it does not cause any direct effect on the real world If this were true, free speech wouldn't be worth defending or even debating. Speech has effects, which makes it valuable.
    - paskozdilar 5y ago
      Every action has effects on the world. If we go down that path we might as well ban thoughtcrime, because criminal thoughts have effects on your mind, making you more probable to actually commit a crime. Note the word "direct" in the sentence you have qouted.
the_af 5y ago
Doesn't the US make a point that even Nazi speech is protected, as long as they don't directly incite violence or commit violent acts? How come RT is less protected than Nazi speech, then? Before you claim "they do incite violence" -- no: many of the now censored podcasts like Ahí Les Va never incited violence.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/freedom-of-speech-general https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/freedom-of-speec...
- detaro 5y ago
  It's not less protected. RT has the same protection from the state and the judicial system as Nazi speech does. RTs problem isn't that their speech isn't protected, it's that others refuse to help them distribute it - which is generally their legal right (and if they broke contracts saying otherwise in the process, RT is free to sue them).
  - the_af 5y ago
    I find that line of reasoning very unconvincing. If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it. It's still not there -- you can still access RT's website and there are alternatives to YouTube... for now. How long till you cannot access them either. It boggles the mind. So Russia blocks Facebook and Twitter, and we rightly repudiate it. Though I guess when we make RT and affiliates inaccessible it's ok?
    - detaro 5y ago
      I believe the difference between the author not having some of his distribution channels anymore and being able to complain about it vs the author being in jail (or worse) is quite relevant. As is the difference of being able to take his content and give it to people in other ways or not. And if you talk "protected", it's pretty clearly a legal argument, and that works as outlined (in the US). "Should Google/... have banned them" is a good and interesting question, but not quite the same.
lettergram 5y ago
I can tell you’ve never read the constitution and any of the founding documents. The US makes a point that even nazism is allowed to be discussed here. Or was until very recently. It has at times been stripped away, but the ideals are always something to strive for
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  This is not a thoughtful reply to the parent. He's correct, and doesn't mention Naziism at all.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    I guess I disagree? I was pointing out that throughout the history of the United States it’s actively supported discussion of topics disallowed elsewhere; including nazism which is banned as “hate speech” throughout the rest of the west. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      But being able to discuss Naziism isn't free speech absolutism. You admit that your "absolutist" views are far beyond what the US protects, and so the US today isn't a free speech absolutist nation, despite having what are probably the most significant speech protections of any nation in history. Parents point remains true.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  I can point to three separate 1919 USSC court cases alone that blow a giant hole in your theory. What YOU think is free speech in this country didn't actually even begin to exist until 1969. It's a fun delineation. In 1968, the banning of draft card burning was ruled to not be a denial of speech rights. In 1969, black armbands were allowed as political speech for the first time and the KKK was allowed to preach in favor of violence as long as they didn't specifically mention when or where the violence was gonna happen. The modern interpretation of what constitutes free speech in this country is less than 60 years old. We're less than 80 years from another case where they ruled that kids had no choice but to recite the pledge of allegiance. Just because you have this pipe dream of the US being founded by some infallible saints doesn't mean they weren't a bunch of selfish pricks who were interested in protecting their own interests.

Free speech absolutism has literally never been a thing anywhere on this planet at any time in the history of the world because it is neither thoughtful nor practical.

revscat 5y ago

I am quite certain they do not oppose laws against making false statements to investigators, lying about income/losses on tax returns or shareholder reports, making violent threats, and etc. As you say, there are no free speech absolutists.

paskozdilar 5y ago
Those things are unlawful because of the effect they directly cause to the real world. Speech, in general, is just sharing information - it does not cause any direct effect on the real world (actions of other people with whom we have shared the information do not count as direct effects, or otherwise the legal system would get really messy).
- vharuck 5y ago
  >Speech, in general, is just sharing information - it does not cause any direct effect on the real world If this were true, free speech wouldn't be worth defending or even debating. Speech has effects, which makes it valuable.
  - paskozdilar 5y ago
    Every action has effects on the world. If we go down that path we might as well ban thoughtcrime, because criminal thoughts have effects on your mind, making you more probable to actually commit a crime. Note the word "direct" in the sentence you have qouted.

the_af 5y ago

Doesn't the US make a point that even Nazi speech is protected, as long as they don't directly incite violence or commit violent acts? How come RT is less protected than Nazi speech, then? Before you claim "they do incite violence" -- no: many of the now censored podcasts like Ahí Les Va never incited violence.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/freedom-of-speech-general https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/freedom-of-speec...
detaro 5y ago
It's not less protected. RT has the same protection from the state and the judicial system as Nazi speech does. RTs problem isn't that their speech isn't protected, it's that others refuse to help them distribute it - which is generally their legal right (and if they broke contracts saying otherwise in the process, RT is free to sue them).
- the_af 5y ago
  I find that line of reasoning very unconvincing. If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it. It's still not there -- you can still access RT's website and there are alternatives to YouTube... for now. How long till you cannot access them either. It boggles the mind. So Russia blocks Facebook and Twitter, and we rightly repudiate it. Though I guess when we make RT and affiliates inaccessible it's ok?
  - detaro 5y ago
    I believe the difference between the author not having some of his distribution channels anymore and being able to complain about it vs the author being in jail (or worse) is quite relevant. As is the difference of being able to take his content and give it to people in other ways or not. And if you talk "protected", it's pretty clearly a legal argument, and that works as outlined (in the US). "Should Google/... have banned them" is a good and interesting question, but not quite the same.

lettergram 5y ago

I can tell you’ve never read the constitution and any of the founding documents. The US makes a point that even nazism is allowed to be discussed here. Or was until very recently. It has at times been stripped away, but the ideals are always something to strive for

joshuamorton 5y ago
This is not a thoughtful reply to the parent. He's correct, and doesn't mention Naziism at all.
- lettergram 5y ago
  I guess I disagree? I was pointing out that throughout the history of the United States it’s actively supported discussion of topics disallowed elsewhere; including nazism which is banned as “hate speech” throughout the rest of the west. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    But being able to discuss Naziism isn't free speech absolutism. You admit that your "absolutist" views are far beyond what the US protects, and so the US today isn't a free speech absolutist nation, despite having what are probably the most significant speech protections of any nation in history. Parents point remains true.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
I can point to three separate 1919 USSC court cases alone that blow a giant hole in your theory. What YOU think is free speech in this country didn't actually even begin to exist until 1969. It's a fun delineation. In 1968, the banning of draft card burning was ruled to not be a denial of speech rights. In 1969, black armbands were allowed as political speech for the first time and the KKK was allowed to preach in favor of violence as long as they didn't specifically mention when or where the violence was gonna happen. The modern interpretation of what constitutes free speech in this country is less than 60 years old. We're less than 80 years from another case where they ruled that kids had no choice but to recite the pledge of allegiance. Just because you have this pipe dream of the US being founded by some infallible saints doesn't mean they weren't a bunch of selfish pricks who were interested in protecting their own interests.