3 ms·

> E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue. If the police beat you up, then that's a freedom of speech iss

by rlpb 2y ago

> E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue. If the police beat you up, then that's a freedom of speech issue (as well as police abuse, etc), since one might argue that the government is suppressing your speech. If a private citizen beats you up, then I disagree; it's merely a matter of assault. That's illegal anyway and your speech had little to do with it. If someone beats me up for looking at them the wrong way, I'd hardly argue that it's a "looking the wrong way" issue. I appreciate that you consider otherwise, and of course it's subjective so your view is as valid as mine. I'm just identifying that I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. (I'm not violating your First Amendment rights.) > I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept You've got it backwards. The Athenians believed in both "isēgoriā, or equality of public speech, which was associated with formal political institutions and democratic deliberation; and parrhēsiā, the license to say anything, even (or especially) if it went against the current" [1]. The First Amendment is based on the freedom of speech in the English Parliament [2]. Millenia older. It isn't until the Warren Court, after WWII, that the modern interpretation that the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech comes into focus [3]. [1] https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-speech/ https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-spe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The_13_clauses_limiting_the_power_of_the_Crown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  > If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. To what extent are you able to abridge someone's freedom, though? The only legally permitted thing you can do is to compel that person to leave. If you are hosting that person commercially, say by running a lodging house, even that option may be restricted by other laws. Legal restrictions on speech are a little different, because of the unlimited sovereign power of the law (what Max Weber called the state's monopoly on violence). The USA has a special limitation on its own sovereignty by means of a written constitution, but I do believe that only applies to government restrictions as parent said. Also, it is worth noting that the freedom of speech in Britain that you link to applies only to Members of Parliament. Nobody else is afforded freedom of speech by the Bill of Rights; other people have to look to different laws to defend themselves.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > To what extent are you able to abridge someone's freedom, though I could ask them to leave, I could threaten to not invite them back, I could withhold something they want or might want in the future. Social sanctions are vast. > it is worth noting that the freedom of speech in Britain that you link to applies only to Members of Parliament Yes. That is the first time a First Amendment-style protection was passed into law. The modern view of freedom of speech being constrained to what the state can and cannot do starts from around then.
bawolff 2y ago
> I'm just identifying that I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept. Fair, but I think the creep is in the other direction. I think that this notion that only the government counts is extremely new (and somewhat limited to the cultural context of the USA) and the broader version is the traditional definition of what freedom of speech means.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
In your example, speech has everything to do with it. It is the motivation for the crime of assault, correct? And its intention is to suppress speech by deterring others through violence.

by rlpb 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. (I'm not violating your First Amendment rights.) > I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept You've got it backwards. The Athenians believed in both "isēgoriā, or equality of public speech, which was associated with formal political institutions and democratic deliberation; and parrhēsiā, the license to say anything, even (or especially) if it went against the current" [1]. The First Amendment is based on the freedom of speech in the English Parliament [2]. Millenia older. It isn't until the Warren Court, after WWII, that the modern interpretation that the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech comes into focus [3]. [1] https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-speech/ https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-spe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The_13_clauses_limiting_the_power_of_the_Crown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

seabass-labrax 2y ago
> If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. To what extent are you able to abridge someone's freedom, though? The only legally permitted thing you can do is to compel that person to leave. If you are hosting that person commercially, say by running a lodging house, even that option may be restricted by other laws. Legal restrictions on speech are a little different, because of the unlimited sovereign power of the law (what Max Weber called the state's monopoly on violence). The USA has a special limitation on its own sovereignty by means of a written constitution, but I do believe that only applies to government restrictions as parent said. Also, it is worth noting that the freedom of speech in Britain that you link to applies only to Members of Parliament. Nobody else is afforded freedom of speech by the Bill of Rights; other people have to look to different laws to defend themselves.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > To what extent are you able to abridge someone's freedom, though I could ask them to leave, I could threaten to not invite them back, I could withhold something they want or might want in the future. Social sanctions are vast. > it is worth noting that the freedom of speech in Britain that you link to applies only to Members of Parliament Yes. That is the first time a First Amendment-style protection was passed into law. The modern view of freedom of speech being constrained to what the state can and cannot do starts from around then.

bawolff 2y ago

> I'm just identifying that I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept. Fair, but I think the creep is in the other direction. I think that this notion that only the government counts is extremely new (and somewhat limited to the cultural context of the USA) and the broader version is the traditional definition of what freedom of speech means.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

In your example, speech has everything to do with it. It is the motivation for the crime of assault, correct? And its intention is to suppress speech by deterring others through violence.