3 ms·

> It's about the ability to speak against those in power without excessive consequences. "Those in power" is such a nebulous concept. In certain situations (le

> It's about the ability to speak against those in power without excessive consequences. "Those in power" is such a nebulous concept. In certain situations (legal cases that come before him), the circuit court judge has a lot of power. In others (Stanford campus environment), the students have more power than he does. Freedom of speech is fundamentally the right to express one's opinion—it is irrelevant whose interests that opinion serves. In the Stanford incident, the hecklers interfered with the judge's ability to express his opinion, while the judge's actions in no way interfered with the ability of the students to communicate their opinions.

jltsiren 4y ago
First, this would be a far more interesting case for freedom of speech if the speaker was someone from a private think tank. Now it's effectively citizens vs. the government. With high-ranking government officials, it's often impossible to separate the person from the office. Second, opinions are irrelevant. Everyone has them, and they are almost always worthless. Placing excessive value on opinions is the reason why we are in this endless quagmire of political polarization. The students disrupted the talk instead of arguing with the speaker, because they believed they have the right (rather than just the freedom) to express their opinions. Freedom of speech is at its core the right to express politically actionable ideas. It protects those who reveal secrets the authorities would keep hidden, those who criticize the way things are done, and those who propose doing things in a different way. It allows citizens to debate matters and to make better, more informed decisions. The freedom to express opinions is a trivial consequence.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  > It protects those who reveal secrets the authorities would keep hidden, those who criticize the way things are done, and those who propose doing things in a different way. Freedom of speech protects your right to say that the earth is round. The roundness of the earth won't reveal any corruption scandals, it won't lead to major political reforms. It's not political at all. And yet is is just as protected as anything else. More generally, defining freedom of speech in terms of government is wrong, because freedom of speech fundamentally does not depend on government. It is an inalienable, God-given right, that people have even in a state of nature where no government exists.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    The primary purpose of freedom of speech is protecting political participation. The protection for other kinds of speech is a trivial consequence. As for those supposed inalienable rights, I suggest empirical validation. Go to a country like North Korea and try testing, which rights actually exist. The only rights that matter are the ones that the society (not necessarily the government) is willing to enforce.
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      It doesn't matter what society thinks. Free speech is self-evident, as natural as breathing—it needs no philosophical justification. Society may try to deny it, but in doing so they deny what it means to be human

jltsiren 4y ago

First, this would be a far more interesting case for freedom of speech if the speaker was someone from a private think tank. Now it's effectively citizens vs. the government. With high-ranking government officials, it's often impossible to separate the person from the office. Second, opinions are irrelevant. Everyone has them, and they are almost always worthless. Placing excessive value on opinions is the reason why we are in this endless quagmire of political polarization. The students disrupted the talk instead of arguing with the speaker, because they believed they have the right (rather than just the freedom) to express their opinions. Freedom of speech is at its core the right to express politically actionable ideas. It protects those who reveal secrets the authorities would keep hidden, those who criticize the way things are done, and those who propose doing things in a different way. It allows citizens to debate matters and to make better, more informed decisions. The freedom to express opinions is a trivial consequence.

Georgelemental 4y ago
> It protects those who reveal secrets the authorities would keep hidden, those who criticize the way things are done, and those who propose doing things in a different way. Freedom of speech protects your right to say that the earth is round. The roundness of the earth won't reveal any corruption scandals, it won't lead to major political reforms. It's not political at all. And yet is is just as protected as anything else. More generally, defining freedom of speech in terms of government is wrong, because freedom of speech fundamentally does not depend on government. It is an inalienable, God-given right, that people have even in a state of nature where no government exists.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  The primary purpose of freedom of speech is protecting political participation. The protection for other kinds of speech is a trivial consequence. As for those supposed inalienable rights, I suggest empirical validation. Go to a country like North Korea and try testing, which rights actually exist. The only rights that matter are the ones that the society (not necessarily the government) is willing to enforce.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    It doesn't matter what society thinks. Free speech is self-evident, as natural as breathing—it needs no philosophical justification. Society may try to deny it, but in doing so they deny what it means to be human