3 ms·
Your last paragraph reminds me of a line of thought I once had: Libertarianism works better without libertarians. It works better with collectivists than indiv
by jltsiren 4y ago
Your last paragraph reminds me of a line of thought I once had:
Libertarianism works better without libertarians. It works better with collectivists than individualists. It works better with people who care about other people's freedoms than with those who care about their own freedoms.
Freedom of speech as a negative liberty means that the government does not criminalize speech. Some people would like to extend that to other powerful entities banning / limiting speech, but then the government would be suppressing those entities' other liberties.
The freedom of speech people care about is a positive liberty. It's about being entitled to have a platform for your speech. Maybe even a platform with an audience, or a platform you feel safe to use. In order for your opponents to have freedom of speech – a platform – your liberties must be suppressed. Either by an authority by force, or by yourself voluntarily.
Ultimately, freedom of speech is about you being obligated not to confiscate the megaphone.
- sokoloff 4y agoExactly. I’d rewrite that last paragraph as: You are neither obligated to hand anyone a megaphone, nor [delete: obligated] permitted to confiscate theirs.
- licebmi__at__ 4y agoI believe this is exactly the equivocation that GP was talking about. Your rewrite is nice to hear, but paradoxical.
- sokoloff 4y agoI don’t see the paradox. I don’t have to give you a megaphone, but if you have one, I’m not allowed to take it from you. What’s the paradox there?
- atchoo 4y agoIt's a curious analogy because in many contexts, use of a megaphone is quite abusive warranting confiscation. If I attend a political rally and the speaker uses a megaphone, that's fine, I have consented to it's use. However other places I have witnessed their use has questionable legality due to breach of the peace because the audience has not consented e.g. getting heckled when entering a University site or getting assailed by someone promoting their batshit Christian cult when trying to do some shopping. I don't think anyone would assume a universal right to make unwanted amplified noise.
- sokoloff 4y agoI have always assumed the megaphone to be figurative: a platform for publication, reach on Twitter, media advertising, etc.