5 ms·
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 ab
by 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 agoIf 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.