4 ms·

Germany has jailed journalists, cartoonists, satirists and such for daring to insult the honor of other heads of state. The UK has arrested journalists for cove

Germany has jailed journalists, cartoonists, satirists and such for daring to insult the honor of other heads of state. The UK has arrested journalists for covering protests they do not want them to cover, particularly green protests. Australia tracked down and detained journalists for reporting on war crimes, with the explicit goal of seizing evidence, so it could not be further reported on. They raided their homes and all of their associates homes, too. Further, they denied the capability for the whistleblower, David McBride, to call witnesses in his favor. His crime? Showing evidence that special forces were murdering children. One of these murderers bragged about shooting a father in the head and laughing as his children screamed and tried to put his brains back inside his skull. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NCPkoUekHQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NCPkoUekHQ) And the US was planning to extrajudicially kill Assange by poisoning him. And yes, freedom of speech and freedom of association do fundamentally include some aspect of "freedom from consequence". Otherwise it would be legal and ethically acceptable to fire people for joining a union or privately advocating for viewpoints not accepted by management. What you want is not freedom of speech, it's controlled speech.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hayst4ck 3y ago
> What you want is not freedom of speech, it's controlled speech. Freedom of speech exists to protect good faith speech. Bad faith speech is protected as a consequence because it is hard/impossible to tell the difference between bad faith and good faith speech. When speech is used in bad faith it erodes the right. Paradox of tolerance and all that. If intolerance is a winning strategy, then a strategy of intolerance will grow. Here is a game to understand a very deep political truth, maybe the political truth: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ It is like the second amendment. The second amendment literally says sometimes it's right for there to be "consequences." Is murder bad? Yeah. Do we have a constitutional right to sacrifice ourselves attempting to kill people who take away peoples freedoms? That is certainly the colloquial understanding. Extra judicial murder to ensure a free state is almost literally enshrined in our constitution. Guns represent violence and violence against the state can only be done extra juridically. The second amendment is like freedom of speech. Our right to own weapons is being eroded because people are using weapons in bad faith, to shoot up schools. So I am in favor of these rights, while against bad faith exercises of these rights. There is nuance to be understood and black and white views of freedom and rights ultimately hurt those freedoms. Someone who has a gun pointed at them is not free, yet we have a right to own guns which are a tool that can take away freedom. So are guns a right to take power, or are guns a right to prevent oppression? A gun can do both, yet our right is to own guns. We have a right to speech, but a responsibility to use it correctly, just like we have a right to guns, but a responsibility to use them correctly. Do you see how it's a little more complicated than wanting controlled speech? I don't want controlled speech because that asserts a position the powerful are taking against the poweless. I want responsible speech just like I want responsible gun use. That's a cultural value and I want a cultural change promoted. > Otherwise it would be legal and ethically acceptable to fire people for joining a union or privately advocating for viewpoints not accepted by management. Isn't it already legal? Definitely in practice if not statute. Unions are not first and foremost a legal construct. If people think their unions are a legal construct then they have already failed. Unions are a power construct, they are a tool to exert force by collectivizing it. Laws regarding unions are ultimately a tool of oppression because the government works on behalf of the wealthy and so those laws ultimately represent wealthy interests. Unions are exactly like the 2nd amendment in that to exercise unionization to fight oppression, it must be done extra-judicially.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hayst4ck 3y ago

> What you want is not freedom of speech, it's controlled speech. Freedom of speech exists to protect good faith speech. Bad faith speech is protected as a consequence because it is hard/impossible to tell the difference between bad faith and good faith speech. When speech is used in bad faith it erodes the right. Paradox of tolerance and all that. If intolerance is a winning strategy, then a strategy of intolerance will grow. Here is a game to understand a very deep political truth, maybe the political truth: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ It is like the second amendment. The second amendment literally says sometimes it's right for there to be "consequences." Is murder bad? Yeah. Do we have a constitutional right to sacrifice ourselves attempting to kill people who take away peoples freedoms? That is certainly the colloquial understanding. Extra judicial murder to ensure a free state is almost literally enshrined in our constitution. Guns represent violence and violence against the state can only be done extra juridically. The second amendment is like freedom of speech. Our right to own weapons is being eroded because people are using weapons in bad faith, to shoot up schools. So I am in favor of these rights, while against bad faith exercises of these rights. There is nuance to be understood and black and white views of freedom and rights ultimately hurt those freedoms. Someone who has a gun pointed at them is not free, yet we have a right to own guns which are a tool that can take away freedom. So are guns a right to take power, or are guns a right to prevent oppression? A gun can do both, yet our right is to own guns. We have a right to speech, but a responsibility to use it correctly, just like we have a right to guns, but a responsibility to use them correctly. Do you see how it's a little more complicated than wanting controlled speech? I don't want controlled speech because that asserts a position the powerful are taking against the poweless. I want responsible speech just like I want responsible gun use. That's a cultural value and I want a cultural change promoted. > Otherwise it would be legal and ethically acceptable to fire people for joining a union or privately advocating for viewpoints not accepted by management. Isn't it already legal? Definitely in practice if not statute. Unions are not first and foremost a legal construct. If people think their unions are a legal construct then they have already failed. Unions are a power construct, they are a tool to exert force by collectivizing it. Laws regarding unions are ultimately a tool of oppression because the government works on behalf of the wealthy and so those laws ultimately represent wealthy interests. Unions are exactly like the 2nd amendment in that to exercise unionization to fight oppression, it must be done extra-judicially.