4 ms·

> > Even free speech has its limits > It doesnt though, thats the point. In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have l

by lucumo 2y ago

> > Even free speech has its limits > It doesnt though, thats the point. In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific). There's a Wikipedia page with free speech exceptions in the USA. Those exceptions don't really seem weird, but just seeing that there are reasonable exceptions makes free speech absolutism less sensible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

_heimdall 2y ago
Your logic here is circular. You're arguing definitions, it doesn't make sense to point to examples of places that claim to have free speech and decide that free speech must have limits because those places said they have it and they have limits. You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.
- pegasus 2y ago
  Sure, you could easily say that, but it would be a pretty silly thing to say. The world is not black and white, as much as we'd like it to be sometimes.
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    It's ok as long as you don't want the world to be black xor white.
Gormo 2y ago
Most of the limits on free speech don't pertain to the speech itself, but rather the speech being related to some other form of criminal conduct. Incitement to violence can be punished because of the violence; fraud can be punished because of the theft, etc. So one can still be a free speech absolutist with respect to speech in itself, while still holding people responsible for unlawful activity that the speech is helping to facilitate.
alt227 2y ago
Thanks for the link, I'll have a read through of that.

by lucumo 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

Your logic here is circular. You're arguing definitions, it doesn't make sense to point to examples of places that claim to have free speech and decide that free speech must have limits because those places said they have it and they have limits. You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.

pegasus 2y ago
Sure, you could easily say that, but it would be a pretty silly thing to say. The world is not black and white, as much as we'd like it to be sometimes.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  It's ok as long as you don't want the world to be black xor white.

Gormo 2y ago

Most of the limits on free speech don't pertain to the speech itself, but rather the speech being related to some other form of criminal conduct. Incitement to violence can be punished because of the violence; fraud can be punished because of the theft, etc. So one can still be a free speech absolutist with respect to speech in itself, while still holding people responsible for unlawful activity that the speech is helping to facilitate.

alt227 2y ago

Thanks for the link, I'll have a read through of that.