4 ms·

Good. Free speech is a natural human right. Most act like it was invented by the US constitution instead of acknowledged by it.

atticora 3y ago
I'm more of a free speech partisan that most people, but I don't understand the claim that it is a natural right in some sense. Is it more or less natural than the impulse of other people to suppress speech? I believe that protecting it is a better policy, but in what sense of the word is it more or less "natural" than suppressing it?
- logicchains 3y ago
  "Natural right" means a right with a sound fundamental philosophical justification behind it, it doesn't mean "natural" in the sense of "something people do naturally". People by nature are often savages; learning to respect the rights of other people, and not just see them as tools for us to impose our own will upon, is part of the challenge of human moral development.
  - atticora 3y ago
    I'm in favor of human moral development through means such as free speech. But "a sound fundamental philosophical justification" doesn't appear to have any meaning, or rather can mean anything to anyone. It can envelop humanity's destruction as easily as its flourishing, depending on where your identity lies. I'd like to be able to deploy "natural" in defense of free speech, but I've found no substance to it. No premise beyond a personal value judgement, which I happen to share. So I default to appeals to utility.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      >. But "a sound fundamental philosophical justification" doesn't appear to have any meanin You're saying the entirety of moral philosophy has no meaning so people should just do whatever they feels like, that's a pretty barbaric position. >So I default to appeals to utility Utility also relies on a philosophical justification; if you throw out all philosophy, you also throw out utilitarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  I can go outside and shout whatever I want into the emptiness in front of me and involve nobody involuntarily. Suppressing speech necessarily requires coercion. That's as cut and dry of a natural/unnatural dichotomy as you can get.
  - atticora 3y ago
    I'd like to believe that there is a sense in which `voluntary` is more natural than `coercion`, but haven't found one. I'm a political extremist when it comes to preferring voluntary over coercion. But how is that more natural than the opposite? A lack of coercion doesn't seem to be the pattern of human history or the non-human natural word. Freedom is more of an aspiration for nature than a description of it.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      "Natural" here doesn't mean naturally occurring. Rape is naturally occurring. Natural here means that you could do it without any interference from another person or to another person. You're born with the ability and need no abstract systems to support your doing so, you need no unwilling participation, all that's required is for people to leave you be. Anything that derives from just your existence and form as a human being that requires no coercion whatsoever is a natural right. Coercion is naturally occurring. The aspiration is to understand an objective set of ethics that all people, when only considering power over themselves and not power over others, would agree to. There's a reason it was called the enlightenment, it was always about seeing how things should be, not how things are.
      - atticora 3y ago
        > There's a reason it was called the enlightenment, it was always about seeing how things should be, not how things are. And I probably broadly agree with you about that "should be". But when someone does not agree with us, it becomes just a personal value judgement. If someone makes the opposite value judgement -- for instance that our species is a blight on Gaia, and they prefer to identify with Gaia -- our preference has no more "natural" weight than preferring chocolate to vanilla. I wish it did.
- anon291 3y ago
  It's a natural right because you have exclusive access to your vocal cords. If someone has hooked up your vocal cords to some sort of control device without your consent, then that's a criminal act. What recourse do those who want to suppress speech have other than illegal violence or further speech?
- benf76 3y ago
  Free speech includes freedom of religion derivative of freedom of thought. If someone can compel you to believe something or say something / or prevent you / they ultimately control what you think and if you don’t have that you don’t have a republic or any true freedoms which is why it’s top of the list
throwawaysugar 3y ago
> Free speech is a natural human right. It is, but it is not the paramount human right. Other rights, like "life" trump "liberty". One may argue that certain instances of "hate speech" encourage actions against "life" and that the "liberty" of exerting that speech is trumped by the need to protect that life. If you extend "life" to mean "health" and "health" to include "mental health", than the right to be a raging racist seems pretty obviously below the right for other people to not be attacked or threatened. QED.
- anon291 3y ago
  [flagged]
- matrix87 3y ago
  Exactly, then you can broaden the scope of "harm" to be whatever is politically convenient. For example, I could turn your same argument around and use it to suppress any discussion of abortion whatsoever because the life of the embryo has precedence over any speech that would jeopardize it Not that I personally think that's the right thing, just there's a danger in making core principles this ambiguous
chickenimprint 3y ago
What according to whom?
kelnos 3y ago
There's no such thing as a natural right. The rights we have only exist because someone in power has granted them. You can believe that everyone should have freedom of speech (and I'd agree with you), but one look around the world should show you that it is not a natural right, as clearly it is suppressed heavily in some places. And even in places that claim to guarantee from of speech usually still restrict it in some ways.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  Someone stranded on a desert island, thousands of miles from all civilization, can say anything they want without repercussions. Their right to free expression is innate, part of being human.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Having the ability to do something under restricted circumstances doesn't make it a natural right. If something is truly a natural right, then they should be able to exercise that right under any circumstances, in any situation.
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      There are two requirements for something to be a natural right: - It must be something any human can exercise in the absence of outside interference by other humans; - Any such interference must be presumptively immoral. Freedom of expression meets both the empirical and moral requirements for being a natural right.

atticora 3y ago

I'm more of a free speech partisan that most people, but I don't understand the claim that it is a natural right in some sense. Is it more or less natural than the impulse of other people to suppress speech? I believe that protecting it is a better policy, but in what sense of the word is it more or less "natural" than suppressing it?

logicchains 3y ago
"Natural right" means a right with a sound fundamental philosophical justification behind it, it doesn't mean "natural" in the sense of "something people do naturally". People by nature are often savages; learning to respect the rights of other people, and not just see them as tools for us to impose our own will upon, is part of the challenge of human moral development.
- atticora 3y ago
  I'm in favor of human moral development through means such as free speech. But "a sound fundamental philosophical justification" doesn't appear to have any meaning, or rather can mean anything to anyone. It can envelop humanity's destruction as easily as its flourishing, depending on where your identity lies. I'd like to be able to deploy "natural" in defense of free speech, but I've found no substance to it. No premise beyond a personal value judgement, which I happen to share. So I default to appeals to utility.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >. But "a sound fundamental philosophical justification" doesn't appear to have any meanin You're saying the entirety of moral philosophy has no meaning so people should just do whatever they feels like, that's a pretty barbaric position. >So I default to appeals to utility Utility also relies on a philosophical justification; if you throw out all philosophy, you also throw out utilitarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
friend_and_foe 3y ago
I can go outside and shout whatever I want into the emptiness in front of me and involve nobody involuntarily. Suppressing speech necessarily requires coercion. That's as cut and dry of a natural/unnatural dichotomy as you can get.
- atticora 3y ago
  I'd like to believe that there is a sense in which `voluntary` is more natural than `coercion`, but haven't found one. I'm a political extremist when it comes to preferring voluntary over coercion. But how is that more natural than the opposite? A lack of coercion doesn't seem to be the pattern of human history or the non-human natural word. Freedom is more of an aspiration for nature than a description of it.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    "Natural" here doesn't mean naturally occurring. Rape is naturally occurring. Natural here means that you could do it without any interference from another person or to another person. You're born with the ability and need no abstract systems to support your doing so, you need no unwilling participation, all that's required is for people to leave you be. Anything that derives from just your existence and form as a human being that requires no coercion whatsoever is a natural right. Coercion is naturally occurring. The aspiration is to understand an objective set of ethics that all people, when only considering power over themselves and not power over others, would agree to. There's a reason it was called the enlightenment, it was always about seeing how things should be, not how things are.
    - atticora 3y ago
      > There's a reason it was called the enlightenment, it was always about seeing how things should be, not how things are. And I probably broadly agree with you about that "should be". But when someone does not agree with us, it becomes just a personal value judgement. If someone makes the opposite value judgement -- for instance that our species is a blight on Gaia, and they prefer to identify with Gaia -- our preference has no more "natural" weight than preferring chocolate to vanilla. I wish it did.
anon291 3y ago
It's a natural right because you have exclusive access to your vocal cords. If someone has hooked up your vocal cords to some sort of control device without your consent, then that's a criminal act. What recourse do those who want to suppress speech have other than illegal violence or further speech?
benf76 3y ago
Free speech includes freedom of religion derivative of freedom of thought. If someone can compel you to believe something or say something / or prevent you / they ultimately control what you think and if you don’t have that you don’t have a republic or any true freedoms which is why it’s top of the list

throwawaysugar 3y ago

> Free speech is a natural human right. It is, but it is not the paramount human right. Other rights, like "life" trump "liberty". One may argue that certain instances of "hate speech" encourage actions against "life" and that the "liberty" of exerting that speech is trumped by the need to protect that life. If you extend "life" to mean "health" and "health" to include "mental health", than the right to be a raging racist seems pretty obviously below the right for other people to not be attacked or threatened. QED.

anon291 3y ago
[flagged]
matrix87 3y ago
Exactly, then you can broaden the scope of "harm" to be whatever is politically convenient. For example, I could turn your same argument around and use it to suppress any discussion of abortion whatsoever because the life of the embryo has precedence over any speech that would jeopardize it Not that I personally think that's the right thing, just there's a danger in making core principles this ambiguous

chickenimprint 3y ago

What according to whom?

kelnos 3y ago

There's no such thing as a natural right. The rights we have only exist because someone in power has granted them. You can believe that everyone should have freedom of speech (and I'd agree with you), but one look around the world should show you that it is not a natural right, as clearly it is suppressed heavily in some places. And even in places that claim to guarantee from of speech usually still restrict it in some ways.

Georgelemental 3y ago
Someone stranded on a desert island, thousands of miles from all civilization, can say anything they want without repercussions. Their right to free expression is innate, part of being human.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Having the ability to do something under restricted circumstances doesn't make it a natural right. If something is truly a natural right, then they should be able to exercise that right under any circumstances, in any situation.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    There are two requirements for something to be a natural right: - It must be something any human can exercise in the absence of outside interference by other humans; - Any such interference must be presumptively immoral. Freedom of expression meets both the empirical and moral requirements for being a natural right.