4 ms·

Sorry you're right, I missed that (I spent all of 5 mins typing up my comment). I wasn't considering all those cases like threats, inciting riots, etc. Those ar

Sorry you're right, I missed that (I spent all of 5 mins typing up my comment). I wasn't considering all those cases like threats, inciting riots, etc. Those are already crimes and I agree with that. What I meant was regular speech.

judge2020 4y ago
This, by definition, means you're not a free speech absolutist. Everyone draws the line somewhere and the current collective is that existing laws are mostly good enough, with some movements to curtail things like bullying and online hate speech (although something like requiring platforms to review every comment / beam everything to the government would not be healthy for giving society)
- 2devnull 4y ago
  No, it’s a matter of supporting free speech that doesn’t violate existing laws.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Could you defend why? A law that punishes or throws you in jail for speech is a restriction on free speech, regardless of how long ago some congress voted on it.
    - 2devnull 4y ago
      Yes, the issue is free speech. That right doesn’t give you the right to commit crimes like fraud. Nobody who self describes or is described as a free speech absolutist believes in decriminalizing fraud, sedition, perjury, etc. It means, as it’s colloquially used, someone who doesn’t believe in restricting speech in absence of one of those crimes. Our forefathers arguably fall into that group. It is literally the #1 amendment. They were Protestants. This was a, perhaps thee, defining issue for America.
      - judge2020 4y ago
        > Nobody who self describes or is described as a free speech absolutist believes in decriminalizing fraud, sedition, perjury, etc. It means, as it’s colloquially used, someone who doesn’t believe in restricting speech in absence of one of those crimes. Given almost everyone who replied, including the OP WanderPanda, assumed you meant the textbook definition of absolutism (given the discussion about harmful speech that either causes people immediate harm or spreads misinformation about things like vaccines), I don't see how this could be considered the colloquial definition of 'free speech absolutism'. Until it is, it might be more useful to explicitly state "except for speech that harms people" whenever you refer to yourself as such.
        2devnull 4y ago
        If the default understanding is a strawman of what all self-avowed free speech absolutists believe, that will favor the side of those free speech absolutists in the long run. I’m ok with that. I’ll be right now and forever, the rest of you will have to catch up later on when you discover you’ve been fighting a strawman.
  - Timon3 4y ago
    Wouldn't this be "free speech absolutist relative to their countries' laws"? It seems like the moniker "free speech absolutist" is meant to be, well, absolute.
Olreich 4y ago
And you hit the struggle right there. Absolute is not the goal, even for free-speech absolutionists. What you define regular speech to be is different to what other people define, and while that might be okay, there is no consensus among any majority or even significant plurality of people about where the actual line between protected and non-protected speech should be.

judge2020 4y ago

This, by definition, means you're not a free speech absolutist. Everyone draws the line somewhere and the current collective is that existing laws are mostly good enough, with some movements to curtail things like bullying and online hate speech (although something like requiring platforms to review every comment / beam everything to the government would not be healthy for giving society)

2devnull 4y ago
No, it’s a matter of supporting free speech that doesn’t violate existing laws.
- judge2020 4y ago
  Could you defend why? A law that punishes or throws you in jail for speech is a restriction on free speech, regardless of how long ago some congress voted on it.
  - 2devnull 4y ago
    Yes, the issue is free speech. That right doesn’t give you the right to commit crimes like fraud. Nobody who self describes or is described as a free speech absolutist believes in decriminalizing fraud, sedition, perjury, etc. It means, as it’s colloquially used, someone who doesn’t believe in restricting speech in absence of one of those crimes. Our forefathers arguably fall into that group. It is literally the #1 amendment. They were Protestants. This was a, perhaps thee, defining issue for America.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      > Nobody who self describes or is described as a free speech absolutist believes in decriminalizing fraud, sedition, perjury, etc. It means, as it’s colloquially used, someone who doesn’t believe in restricting speech in absence of one of those crimes. Given almost everyone who replied, including the OP WanderPanda, assumed you meant the textbook definition of absolutism (given the discussion about harmful speech that either causes people immediate harm or spreads misinformation about things like vaccines), I don't see how this could be considered the colloquial definition of 'free speech absolutism'. Until it is, it might be more useful to explicitly state "except for speech that harms people" whenever you refer to yourself as such.
      - 2devnull 4y ago
        If the default understanding is a strawman of what all self-avowed free speech absolutists believe, that will favor the side of those free speech absolutists in the long run. I’m ok with that. I’ll be right now and forever, the rest of you will have to catch up later on when you discover you’ve been fighting a strawman.
- Timon3 4y ago
  Wouldn't this be "free speech absolutist relative to their countries' laws"? It seems like the moniker "free speech absolutist" is meant to be, well, absolute.

Olreich 4y ago

And you hit the struggle right there. Absolute is not the goal, even for free-speech absolutionists. What you define regular speech to be is different to what other people define, and while that might be okay, there is no consensus among any majority or even significant plurality of people about where the actual line between protected and non-protected speech should be.