3 ms·
Freedom of speech almost never meant and never will mean to be able to speak whatever you want to whoever you want wherever you want whenever you want. No matte
by ruszki 3y ago
Freedom of speech almost never meant and never will mean to be able to speak whatever you want to whoever you want wherever you want whenever you want. No matter what propaganda tells. There are limits and will be limits, and except anarchists nobody can say that this is what they really want in good faith. We know as a fact that uncontrolled free speech is harmful.
Currently, almost everybody who say this, want something else, and this is just a tool to achieve that other thing. A proven harmful tool.
There is free speech in the USA.
- immibis 3y ago> Freedom of speech almost never meant and never will mean to be able to speak whatever you want to whoever you want wherever you want whenever you want That is quite literally what it means. Everything else is a retcon. (It still doesn't mean freedom of social consequences though) You said it yourself: uncontrolled free speech is harmful. That means there should be mostly free speech, but not completely free speech.
- r00fus 3y ago> Freedom of speech almost never meant and never will mean to be able to speak whatever you want to whoever you want wherever you want whenever you want That is quite literally what it means. >> That is quite literally what it means. From a platonic ideal, true. But in reality platonic ideals do not exist. Does pure capitalism exist anywhere? No, because without some regulatory scheme it would devolve quickly into plutocracy, planned economy or a regulated capitalist economy.
- immibis 3y agoSo you acknowledge that freedom of speech is a platonic ideal, which the USA doesn't have.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ruszki 3y agoSo are you saying that nobody wants free speech (except anarchists as I mentioned)?
- immibis 3y agoI don't care how many people want free speech. That is completely irrelevant. You are the one defending that the USA has it.
- ruszki 3y agoIt matters because if the USA doesn’t have it because of your reasoning, then all of those people lied. And currently, your words against basically the whole relevant literature, laws, and basically almost all of humanity. Especially those which describe how people use expressions meaning a scale as an absolutist term, which happens continuously, like in your case too.
- immibis 3y agoYes, I think all those people lied. Didn't I say that? American "free speech absolutists" keep finding poor rationalizations to exclude the kinds of speech they happen to dislike from the definition of "free speech". By contrast, in Europe, those people simply don't call themselves absolutists, state openly that free speech has some exceptions, and don't have to rationalize anything.
- JohnFen 3y ago> That is quite literally what it means Legally in the US, it has never meant this. No freedom, even Constitutionally enumerated ones, is absolute. It logically cannot be different than this because every freedom we have can be used in a way that infringes on another person's freedom. The path to maximal liberty for everyone always requires some limits on individual liberty.
- immibis 3y agoSticks and stones can break my bones, but speech rarely infringes on my constitutional rights.
- ruszki 3y agoIt didn’t mean that in Ancient Greece because whoever used that idea didn’t thought that slaves were humans, it didn’t mean that in Middle Ages because everybody who used that used it for specific locations or forms, and it definitely doesn’t mean that since Mill, because nobody use that without including some level of harm principle under an asterisk. The exceptions are as old as the idea itself. The retcon is thinking otherwise.