3 ms·

Except this doesn't prove the point asked. I can literally write your second example and in fact, I will; I hereby order whatever shadowy figures monitor all in

Except this doesn't prove the point asked. I can literally write your second example and in fact, I will; I hereby order whatever shadowy figures monitor all internet communications to kick zamalek off of the internet. There; has that in any way impacted your ability to respond to me? Has my speech at all affected yours? The thing you're actually against is the execution of an action, killing or hanging or whatever else. The basic right of freedom of speech is not that. This equivocation between speech and action, this insistence that speech itself is fundamentally harmful and must be controlled, censored, and limited, is pretty fundamentally undemocratic in ways that most actual authoritarians who rose to power in the past century would be quite familiar with.

zamalek 4y ago
What if I followed you around and shouted my speech really loudly every time you tried to speak?
- endominus 4y ago
  What if I had a sonic cannon that could blast a house off it's foundations? Is a DDoS attack speech? No. No one argues that in good faith. Stop justifying your conclusions by redefining speech to something else. There are actual, reasonable arguments for the limitations of speech - "speech is actually just any noise and people can play noise really loudly and that can cause hearing damage" is not one of them.
  - zamalek 4y ago
    You are restating my argument as using a sonic cannon. That is not what I said. I said: what happens if I shout my speech so as to obscure yours? Given the strawman, I guess that you don't have an answer.
    - endominus 4y ago
      Your argument is, abstractly, "Isn't censorship also speech?" My response is, no, censorship is not covered under free speech. This is a faulty supposition that many people who are generally opposed to free speech hold. Preventing people from hearing someone speak is self-evidently the most anti-free-speech act it is possible for a private individual to do.
      - zamalek 4y ago
        > "Isn't censorship also speech?" That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that for you to stop me from shouting over your speech, you would be limiting my speech. I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things. Limiting my speech is censorship. Free speech absolutism is a paradox. The only way to resolve that paradox is to limit speech that limits the fundamental (so-called "God-given") rights of others.
        endominus 4y ago
        >I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things. You could argue that, yes. What you can argue doesn't matter. I can also, equally, argue that I am free to DDoS someone I don't like, because there is no technical limitation to my doing so, and that anyone attempting to stop that is inhibiting my free speech or free use of whatever hardware I control. Where does anyone argue that? Where has anyone argued this version of free speech that you are presenting the fallacies of? I have never heard even the most die-hard free speech supporter advocate that someone is free to follow you around all day, yelling to drown out your voice. And if this free speech absolutism is a position that no one holds, why are you arguing against it? >"I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak. This started by you giving the example of an order to kill someone as being free speech that so-called free speech absolutists would logically protect. But the thing that is actually a problem, in that example, is that you are (presumably) using whatever existing power you have to unlawfully kill someone. The fact that someone could literally say those words to cause that effect in no way mandates that free speech advocates defend literal murder.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  Then, while you aren engaging in free speech, you are also engaging in stalking/harassment. If you stopped following the person who, presumably, doesn’t want you following them, you are still free to say whatever you like at any volume. Free speech isn’t just “I can say whatever I want.” It’s also “nobody can make me say something I don’t want to.” And then also “I don’t have to listen to anything I don’t want to.” (You are here.) And finally, “I can’t stop other people from listening to what they want to hear.” This is the point of “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody js around to hear…” Speech is communication which is bidirectional, it can’t be free unless both sides are free to engage or not.

zamalek 4y ago

What if I followed you around and shouted my speech really loudly every time you tried to speak?

endominus 4y ago
What if I had a sonic cannon that could blast a house off it's foundations? Is a DDoS attack speech? No. No one argues that in good faith. Stop justifying your conclusions by redefining speech to something else. There are actual, reasonable arguments for the limitations of speech - "speech is actually just any noise and people can play noise really loudly and that can cause hearing damage" is not one of them.
- zamalek 4y ago
  You are restating my argument as using a sonic cannon. That is not what I said. I said: what happens if I shout my speech so as to obscure yours? Given the strawman, I guess that you don't have an answer.
  - endominus 4y ago
    Your argument is, abstractly, "Isn't censorship also speech?" My response is, no, censorship is not covered under free speech. This is a faulty supposition that many people who are generally opposed to free speech hold. Preventing people from hearing someone speak is self-evidently the most anti-free-speech act it is possible for a private individual to do.
    - zamalek 4y ago
      > "Isn't censorship also speech?" That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that for you to stop me from shouting over your speech, you would be limiting my speech. I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things. Limiting my speech is censorship. Free speech absolutism is a paradox. The only way to resolve that paradox is to limit speech that limits the fundamental (so-called "God-given") rights of others.
      - endominus 4y ago
        >I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things. You could argue that, yes. What you can argue doesn't matter. I can also, equally, argue that I am free to DDoS someone I don't like, because there is no technical limitation to my doing so, and that anyone attempting to stop that is inhibiting my free speech or free use of whatever hardware I control. Where does anyone argue that? Where has anyone argued this version of free speech that you are presenting the fallacies of? I have never heard even the most die-hard free speech supporter advocate that someone is free to follow you around all day, yelling to drown out your voice. And if this free speech absolutism is a position that no one holds, why are you arguing against it? >"I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak. This started by you giving the example of an order to kill someone as being free speech that so-called free speech absolutists would logically protect. But the thing that is actually a problem, in that example, is that you are (presumably) using whatever existing power you have to unlawfully kill someone. The fact that someone could literally say those words to cause that effect in no way mandates that free speech advocates defend literal murder.
sixstringtheory 4y ago
Then, while you aren engaging in free speech, you are also engaging in stalking/harassment. If you stopped following the person who, presumably, doesn’t want you following them, you are still free to say whatever you like at any volume. Free speech isn’t just “I can say whatever I want.” It’s also “nobody can make me say something I don’t want to.” And then also “I don’t have to listen to anything I don’t want to.” (You are here.) And finally, “I can’t stop other people from listening to what they want to hear.” This is the point of “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody js around to hear…” Speech is communication which is bidirectional, it can’t be free unless both sides are free to engage or not.