3 ms·

Free speech should not be absolute. No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.

smitty1e 1y ago
There is an absolute need for people to mature and perpetuate a peaceful society. Maturity implies that, while I might retain a right to be a dickhead, everyone (including me) would be better off if I put on my big-people pants. Beside just repackaging your point, though, there is tremendous power to be had in setting oneself up as a gatekeeper. The power to regulate where the line is drawn on just how free speech can be is a gateway drug to tyranny. Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech. Absolute freedom devolves into tyranny super fast. If a democratically elected government cannot regulate how society operates on a base level, my only resourcento you retaining your right to be a dickhead is me retaining my right to have you swallow my fist in retribution. I really don't want to live in such a society. Better to have some regulated basic civility.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    The question is less the regulation than the feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance. That is why a democracy with well functioning institutions is important. Power is fractured so that there are many checks and balances. It's important that we have the right to criticize the government, and to keep those in power in check. We don't need to ensure every dickhead can deny the Holocaust, or call black people monkeys, or claim that 5G technology is a conspiracy to kill those that take vaccines to ensure we have proper rights to speech in that 'goldilocks" zone.
      - smitty1e 1y ago
        > Power is fractured so that there are many checks and balances. Except that power has been centralized: see the national debt.
bdd8f1df777b 1y ago
Stop criticizing CCP for censoring speech then. They have their own definitions of "No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.".
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  I am not Chinese, and I don't live in China. Why would I criticize the CCP? It's not my problem.
eyko 1y ago
John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty"[1] offered one of the most comprehensive defences of free speech (that is as relevant today as it was then). You do raise a good point re: tradeoffs in a healthy society. Mill anticipated this objection and addressed it directly. He didn't advocate for free speech without consequences but developed a harm principle specifically to establish what limits are acceptable. Acceptable limits on thought and speech should be based on demonstrable harm, rather than alleged offence, discomfort, or the current popular opinion or cultural disapproval. He recognises the need to set some limits, yet also the dangers of who gets to set them. Historically, those with power to restrict speech have restricted truth as falsehood. The bar for restrictions should be very high, not because free speech should be absolute, but because the dangers of overzealous restrictions far outweigh the cost of permitting speech we might personally find objectionable. Even completely false opinions might have their value as they force defenders of truth to better articulate their position or reasoning, and prevents beliefs from becoming prejudiced, or platitudes. I thought I'd share since it's relevant and there may be some younger readers here that might not have come across his work. I really recommend reading it, even if it's an LLM summary as an introduction (as seems to be the trend nowadays) Edited to fix a few typos (typing from mobile) 1. https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html#book-reader https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html#book-reader
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > the dangers of overzealous restrictions far outweigh the cost of permitting speech I don't think restricting things such Holocaust denial, or declaring whole ethnicities as subhuman to fan the fires of racial or ethnical hatred is really being overzealous in restricting speech. Which is essentially what people are objecting to here.

There is an absolute need for people to mature and perpetuate a peaceful society. Maturity implies that, while I might retain a right to be a dickhead, everyone (including me) would be better off if I put on my big-people pants. Beside just repackaging your point, though, there is tremendous power to be had in setting oneself up as a gatekeeper. The power to regulate where the line is drawn on just how free speech can be is a gateway drug to tyranny. Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech.

surgical_fire 1y ago
> Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech. Absolute freedom devolves into tyranny super fast. If a democratically elected government cannot regulate how society operates on a base level, my only resourcento you retaining your right to be a dickhead is me retaining my right to have you swallow my fist in retribution. I really don't want to live in such a society. Better to have some regulated basic civility.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  The question is less the regulation than the feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance. That is why a democracy with well functioning institutions is important. Power is fractured so that there are many checks and balances. It's important that we have the right to criticize the government, and to keep those in power in check. We don't need to ensure every dickhead can deny the Holocaust, or call black people monkeys, or claim that 5G technology is a conspiracy to kill those that take vaccines to ensure we have proper rights to speech in that 'goldilocks" zone.
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      > Power is fractured so that there are many checks and balances. Except that power has been centralized: see the national debt.

bdd8f1df777b 1y ago

Stop criticizing CCP for censoring speech then. They have their own definitions of "No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.".

surgical_fire 1y ago
I am not Chinese, and I don't live in China. Why would I criticize the CCP? It's not my problem.

eyko 1y ago

John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty"[1] offered one of the most comprehensive defences of free speech (that is as relevant today as it was then). You do raise a good point re: tradeoffs in a healthy society. Mill anticipated this objection and addressed it directly. He didn't advocate for free speech without consequences but developed a harm principle specifically to establish what limits are acceptable. Acceptable limits on thought and speech should be based on demonstrable harm, rather than alleged offence, discomfort, or the current popular opinion or cultural disapproval. He recognises the need to set some limits, yet also the dangers of who gets to set them. Historically, those with power to restrict speech have restricted truth as falsehood. The bar for restrictions should be very high, not because free speech should be absolute, but because the dangers of overzealous restrictions far outweigh the cost of permitting speech we might personally find objectionable. Even completely false opinions might have their value as they force defenders of truth to better articulate their position or reasoning, and prevents beliefs from becoming prejudiced, or platitudes. I thought I'd share since it's relevant and there may be some younger readers here that might not have come across his work. I really recommend reading it, even if it's an LLM summary as an introduction (as seems to be the trend nowadays) Edited to fix a few typos (typing from mobile) 1. https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html#book-reader https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html#book-reader

surgical_fire 1y ago
> the dangers of overzealous restrictions far outweigh the cost of permitting speech I don't think restricting things such Holocaust denial, or declaring whole ethnicities as subhuman to fan the fires of racial or ethnical hatred is really being overzealous in restricting speech. Which is essentially what people are objecting to here.