9 ms·
You would about as reasonably argue that laws prohibiting espionage violate free speech, because one should be able to say what one likes to an agent of a hosti
by throwanem 4y ago
You would about as reasonably argue that laws prohibiting espionage violate free speech, because one should be able to say what one likes to an agent of a hostile foreign power with no need to fear any consequence.
This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law, and I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious.
- charcircuit 4y ago>You would about as reasonably argue that laws prohibiting espionage violate free speech Yes. >This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law It's not absurd. It's quite a simple ideal of being able to freely express things. Whatever US law is doesn't change my ideals of existing in a society which is not bound by a govemment on what they can and can not express. >I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious. This could be said about any compromise of free speech. Many groups desire to take away people freedoms of speech and they start by taking away things people think would be absurd to want to express.
- throwanem 4y agoThat's well and good, but arguing with deliberate disregard for the entire history of US jurisprudence dating all the way back to the Federalist produces results not meaningfully different from arguing in complete ignorance of same.