4 ms·

> That should not be assumed to mean you are free from the consequences of your speech. Define for me then what does it mean to not have freedom of speech. Be

> That should not be assumed to mean you are free from the consequences of your speech. Define for me then what does it mean to not have freedom of speech. Because "having freedom of speech" and "not having freedom of speech" is beginning to look a lot like the same thing using your definition. > You can actually yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater. And you will have a serious legal problem to contend with. You use one of the few exceptions to freedom of speech to make your case? If there are negative consequences to speaking your mind then by definition you aren't really free to do so anymore.

jfengel 3y ago
The definition is a gigantic pile of judicial precedents, which lawyers spend years learning. The definition cannot be reduced to an Internet aphorism, and such an aphorism could never be just. Real human interactions are complicated, and real law will always revolve around balancing conflicting rights.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Freedom of speech as a concept is relatively simple, Wikipedia has pretty good definition, “Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.” > The definition is a gigantic pile of judicial precedents, which lawyers spend years learning. The thing is, no country has 100% unfettered freedom of speech. Judicial precedents are all about what is and isn’t an exception to freedom of speech under US law - i.e. what they debate about is “freedom of speech”, they are debating about whether X falls under the exceptions that the country has chosen.
robomartin 3y ago
> Define for me then what does it mean to not have freedom of speech. I am not sure you understand what freedom of speech, the reality, not the fantasy, means as defined in the First Amendment (FA) of the US Constitution. At a very basic level, it isn't complicated at all. There is no language whatsoever having anything to do with magical powers that shield anyone when they say whatever goes through their mind in any private or public setting outside of contact with government. In a sense, the FA defines a set (think Venn diagram), call it "F". Defining what it means not to have freedom of speech, then, is relatively simple: Anything in the universal set that isn't in F. So ~F. An easy example of this might be a range of surreal scenarios where government controls what you can say and they can throw you in jail if they don't like what you say. You know, like what happened to Jack Ma when the Chinese Communist Party didn't like what he was saying. He conveniently disappeared for a long time...surely taking a relaxed vacation. Yeah. >> You can actually yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater. And you will have a serious legal problem to contend with. > You use one of the few exceptions to freedom of speech to make your case? It's just an easy example. Try it. Stan up in a theater and yell "Fire!!!". Nobody is going to stop you. Not even the government. > If there are negative consequences to speaking your mind then by definition you aren't really free to do so anymore. Sure you are. In full understanding of the consequences of your speech. I get your point. Maybe the word "free" isn't precise enough in these discussions. I get it. I mean, you can stand in the middle of the street somewhere in North Korea (pick any totalitarian regime) and just unload on the government and their mothers. In that sense, every North Korean is "free" to do that. The fact that they likely end-up dead makes them not free at all. Right? How is that different from not being able to yell "Fire!!!" at a theater? Well, in one sense, and likely your point, it isn't. If you can't do that and walk away without consequences, how is it that you are "free". The difference here, I think, is that, in the US, "Freedom of Speech" is defined very narrowly to apply to what I am going to define as "contact with government". Somehow people have come to ascribe many magical meanings to the term. Like having the magical right to yell obscenities to someone's face and that person --because of this imaginary magical shield-- cannot do anything about it. Sounds great, yet, that's pure fantasy. Hence my statement about the popular version of freedom of speech, not the First Amendment: You are free to say anything you want, anywhere you want. You are not free from the consequences of what you choose to say. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the FA, that's a different beast with it's own problems. Here's one of my First Amendment observations (note: IANAL, which means this could be complete nonsense): A politician can lie to all of us without consequences. If you lie to a government official, you could end-up in jail. I am not sure how that squares with the FA, except in cases where you are explicitly required to speak the truth.

jfengel 3y ago

The definition is a gigantic pile of judicial precedents, which lawyers spend years learning. The definition cannot be reduced to an Internet aphorism, and such an aphorism could never be just. Real human interactions are complicated, and real law will always revolve around balancing conflicting rights.

worrycue 3y ago
Freedom of speech as a concept is relatively simple, Wikipedia has pretty good definition, “Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.” > The definition is a gigantic pile of judicial precedents, which lawyers spend years learning. The thing is, no country has 100% unfettered freedom of speech. Judicial precedents are all about what is and isn’t an exception to freedom of speech under US law - i.e. what they debate about is “freedom of speech”, they are debating about whether X falls under the exceptions that the country has chosen.

robomartin 3y ago

> Define for me then what does it mean to not have freedom of speech. I am not sure you understand what freedom of speech, the reality, not the fantasy, means as defined in the First Amendment (FA) of the US Constitution. At a very basic level, it isn't complicated at all. There is no language whatsoever having anything to do with magical powers that shield anyone when they say whatever goes through their mind in any private or public setting outside of contact with government. In a sense, the FA defines a set (think Venn diagram), call it "F". Defining what it means not to have freedom of speech, then, is relatively simple: Anything in the universal set that isn't in F. So ~F. An easy example of this might be a range of surreal scenarios where government controls what you can say and they can throw you in jail if they don't like what you say. You know, like what happened to Jack Ma when the Chinese Communist Party didn't like what he was saying. He conveniently disappeared for a long time...surely taking a relaxed vacation. Yeah. >> You can actually yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater. And you will have a serious legal problem to contend with. > You use one of the few exceptions to freedom of speech to make your case? It's just an easy example. Try it. Stan up in a theater and yell "Fire!!!". Nobody is going to stop you. Not even the government. > If there are negative consequences to speaking your mind then by definition you aren't really free to do so anymore. Sure you are. In full understanding of the consequences of your speech. I get your point. Maybe the word "free" isn't precise enough in these discussions. I get it. I mean, you can stand in the middle of the street somewhere in North Korea (pick any totalitarian regime) and just unload on the government and their mothers. In that sense, every North Korean is "free" to do that. The fact that they likely end-up dead makes them not free at all. Right? How is that different from not being able to yell "Fire!!!" at a theater? Well, in one sense, and likely your point, it isn't. If you can't do that and walk away without consequences, how is it that you are "free". The difference here, I think, is that, in the US, "Freedom of Speech" is defined very narrowly to apply to what I am going to define as "contact with government". Somehow people have come to ascribe many magical meanings to the term. Like having the magical right to yell obscenities to someone's face and that person --because of this imaginary magical shield-- cannot do anything about it. Sounds great, yet, that's pure fantasy. Hence my statement about the popular version of freedom of speech, not the First Amendment: You are free to say anything you want, anywhere you want. You are not free from the consequences of what you choose to say. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the FA, that's a different beast with it's own problems. Here's one of my First Amendment observations (note: IANAL, which means this could be complete nonsense): A politician can lie to all of us without consequences. If you lie to a government official, you could end-up in jail. I am not sure how that squares with the FA, except in cases where you are explicitly required to speak the truth.