5 ms·

Ideological purity may wish otherwise, but there’s a meta-layer here: there are inevitable limits to “free speech” when said speech genuinely threatens the inst

Ideological purity may wish otherwise, but there’s a meta-layer here: there are inevitable limits to “free speech” when said speech genuinely threatens the institution that otherwise allows free speech. You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. You are not free to share speech that’s been deemed classified. You are not free to conspire with foreign enemies. etc. While the US does protect many forms of forms of political speech that are deemed impotent or that advocate radical position within the rubric of its institutions, it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies). It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. Because that's not speech, as in an opinion. It's a call to action. But you can speak all day long about how the president is useless and should be replaced. People in the UK couldn't even protest the coronation of Charles without facing arrest. > it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies). Simply not true. People get arrested for speech in other first world countries that would not happen in the US. > It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all. It very much is.
- immibis 3y ago
  Calls to action are speech. When I open my mouth and words come out of it, that is speech. When I punch you in the face, that is not speech. When I tell someone else to punch you in the face, that is speech. When he punches you, that is not speech. I don't know how much simpler I can make it. If I'm not free to tell someone to punch you in the face, then I don't have absolute free speech.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > Calls to action are speech. Yes, technically, but come on now. You're being disingenuous. Let's forgo the semantic bullshit which is a pretty shoddy attempt at making a point to begin with. Instead of saying 'freedom of speech', since you want to be so technical, we can say 'freedom to express any opinion'. The USA has significantly more freedom for people to 'express any opinion' than other first world countries. > I don't know how much simpler I can make it. You're not making anything 'simple', you're making a disingenuous point to try and support an even more, forgive me, asinine point that isn't really correct except in a meaningless semantic way. You're ignoring the spirit of what is being discussed and acting like you've refuted a claim; you haven't even come close. Why don't you actually try and address the claim made instead of playing silly semantic games in lieu of an argument?
    - immibis 3y ago
      But people aren't talking about "freedom to express any opinion". They're talking about "free speech".
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Yes, and as generally used and meant, it means "freedom to express any opinion". No one reasonable disagrees that you shouldn't be able to yell fire in a crowded theater. There have never been people advocating for that when they argue for free speech. Pointing out there is a restriction on causing riots or disturbances to argue that there is not truly free speech is rather meaningless. It's a 'victory' only in the most technical sense, and not one worth recognizing considering how irrelevant it is to the actual discussion, which relates to "freedom to express any opinion". Just to be clear, the claim is that the US has significantly more freedom to "express any opinion" than any other first world country does. In this context, "freedom to express any opinion" is generally referred to as "freedom of speech".

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

> You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. Because that's not speech, as in an opinion. It's a call to action. But you can speak all day long about how the president is useless and should be replaced. People in the UK couldn't even protest the coronation of Charles without facing arrest. > it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies). Simply not true. People get arrested for speech in other first world countries that would not happen in the US. > It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all. It very much is.

immibis 3y ago
Calls to action are speech. When I open my mouth and words come out of it, that is speech. When I punch you in the face, that is not speech. When I tell someone else to punch you in the face, that is speech. When he punches you, that is not speech. I don't know how much simpler I can make it. If I'm not free to tell someone to punch you in the face, then I don't have absolute free speech.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > Calls to action are speech. Yes, technically, but come on now. You're being disingenuous. Let's forgo the semantic bullshit which is a pretty shoddy attempt at making a point to begin with. Instead of saying 'freedom of speech', since you want to be so technical, we can say 'freedom to express any opinion'. The USA has significantly more freedom for people to 'express any opinion' than other first world countries. > I don't know how much simpler I can make it. You're not making anything 'simple', you're making a disingenuous point to try and support an even more, forgive me, asinine point that isn't really correct except in a meaningless semantic way. You're ignoring the spirit of what is being discussed and acting like you've refuted a claim; you haven't even come close. Why don't you actually try and address the claim made instead of playing silly semantic games in lieu of an argument?
  - immibis 3y ago
    But people aren't talking about "freedom to express any opinion". They're talking about "free speech".
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Yes, and as generally used and meant, it means "freedom to express any opinion". No one reasonable disagrees that you shouldn't be able to yell fire in a crowded theater. There have never been people advocating for that when they argue for free speech. Pointing out there is a restriction on causing riots or disturbances to argue that there is not truly free speech is rather meaningless. It's a 'victory' only in the most technical sense, and not one worth recognizing considering how irrelevant it is to the actual discussion, which relates to "freedom to express any opinion". Just to be clear, the claim is that the US has significantly more freedom to "express any opinion" than any other first world country does. In this context, "freedom to express any opinion" is generally referred to as "freedom of speech".