3 ms·

Free speech is not an American thing, it's a human thing. The fact that some governments do not recognize it does not make it any less of a right. Rights are n

• hulitu 2y ago
  > Rights are not given to you by your government, your rights are your rights by virtue of you being a human being. In theory, yes. In practice, see palestinian protests in western world and others (phone searches at borders, mass surveillance etc.)
• rayiner 2y ago
  You’re just trying to launder your cultural beliefs through fancy language. Westerners developed the concept of “rights” as God-given guarantees that were beyond the power of governments to strip away. But of course Thais don’t share your God. And now most westerners don’t believe in the God that was originally invoked as the premise for those rights. So where do these universal “rights” come from? Do they reflect some fact of human biology? Of course they do not.
  • pc86 2y ago
    I'm not trying to launder anything, I think it's pretty obvious that Western culture in general is superior to others. Case in point: the linked article here. No laundering necessary. But even if you disagree with that, there's nothing preventing anyone from acknowledging my actual point, as well as the fact that belief in inalienable human rights does not by definition require any particular religion or belief in any particular God or gods. It simply requires acknowledgement that all humans are worthy of those rights.
    • rayiner 2y ago
      What does “worthy” mean? Isn’t that a value judgment? Can’t different groups of people reach different conclusions about worth?
      • pc86 2y ago
        You have inherent worth by virtue of being a human being. Do you feel that's up for debate? Are cultures that decide you have no worth as a human being based on your skin color, or religion, or caste, or last name, equal to those that don't?
        • Dracophoenix 2y ago
          > You have inherent worth by virtue of being a human being. Do you feel that's up for debate? Of course it's up for debate. Debate is what gave the notion of "inherent worth"[1] intellectual and popular credence in the first place. You forget that human beings were historically categorized according to a chain of being with the clergy and royalty (rather conveniently) at the top. One's worth to $DEITY and the world was determined by the height of the seat one sat on. This arrangement of affairs was treated as an unquestionable given for thousands of years in civilizations across the world. To suggest otherwise would have been treated as insanity or denounced as heresy. The existence of Inherent worth thrives upon the fact that those who debate it depend on it. To suggest it's beyond questioning turns the idea into an article of faith. > Are cultures that decide you have no worth as a human being based on your skin color, or religion, or caste, or last name, equal to those that don't? Until midway through the 20th century in certain parts of the world, this was accepted as fact. In other parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa of all places, it's still the case today. [1] A more rigorous term for what you're referring to is self-sovereignty. Strictly speaking, the term "inherent worth" is a contradiction in terms.
          • pc86 2y ago
            You're right, I wasn't as articulate as I could have been, when I say "not up for debate" I mean that in an ontological sense (not in the religious meaning), human beings have worth because they are human. It's not based on religion, or race, and it's not granted by any government or organization. It of course can be debated and @rayiner is doing a good job debating it, but IMO the worth of any individual human being is as factual and certain as 1+1=2. I'm happy to debate it but you have a hill to climb if you want to change my mind.
  • CamperBob2 2y ago
    A better way to put it may be to say that rights are things that can't be granted to you by God, government, or anyone else -- only taken away.
  • Yeul 2y ago
    In the case of the Netherlands we place humans above god. Ultimately Dutch philosophers came to the conclusion that the individual and their happiness are at the very epicenter of the universe. It broke the chains of mental slavery inherent to Christianity. But as you say these things are cultural. Such ideas never found an audience in Asia.
• freespeechlefts 2y ago
  Free speech as you understand it is an american thing. More specifically, it's a popularized and idealized version of free speech that has no basis in reality or law. All free speech rights around the world are defined by governments, culture, law and history. Germany's free speech is markedly different from american free speech for obvious reasons. Also, you are mistaken when you link free speech to human beings. Corporations have free speech rights. Corporations aren't human beings. In the idealized abstract, it feels like free speech is a universal and agreed upon ideal. It isn't. Not between nations. Not even within nations. Even in the US, we have no set definition of free speech. Free speech spans from absolutists who believe all speech is legal to those who want to limit free speech to the absolute minimum as they define it.
  • pc86 2y ago
    > Germany's free speech is markedly different from american free speech for obvious reasons. Germany does not have free speech so yes it is markedly different. > Corporations have free speech rights. Corporations aren't human beings. I'm not talking about any legal framework around free speech. If I was, I'd be talking about the First Amendment or about a specific law or court case.
• hollerith 2y ago
  >Free speech is not an American thing, it's a human thing. Thank you for providing such a clear example of the mentality that Rayiner refers to.
  • pc86 2y ago
    To be clear I'm not talking about the First Amendment, I'm talking about free speech. Don't you think a person should be able to say what they want, when they want, without fear of persecution from their government?
    • hollerith 2y ago
      I grew up and chose to remain in the US, and I have never seriously questioned the American norm around speech, but if I lived in a society that never had such a norm, I imagine I would regard the advocates for introducing such a norm into my society to have the burden of proof that doing so would be worth it. I respect the advocates who make a consequentialist argument for the norm, but not the advocates that say that free speech is a natural right or a God-given right and believe that that settles the question.
      • _t9ow 2y ago
        > if I lived in a society that never had such a norm, I imagine I would regard the advocates for introducing such a norm into my society to have the burden of proof that doing so would be worth it. Thank you for being open-minded and for having empathy.
    • ryandrake 2y ago
      > Don't you think a person should be able to say what they want, when they want, without fear of persecution from their government? It is possible to both believe something and at the same time, recognize that the belief is not universally held.
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Free speech is not an American thing, it's a human thing Why? To what extent? There are multiple correct answers to these problems. The best universal one is allowing folks to migrate to a cultural configuration they like instead of dictating what values others should hold.
  • lazide 2y ago
    I think you will find a great many cultures would fight you to the death over that - especially if it meant women leaving.