4 ms·

If only it were that simple. People seem to have to constantly argue about what human rights actually are. They use free speech to argue for all kinds of censor

If only it were that simple. People seem to have to constantly argue about what human rights actually are. They use free speech to argue for all kinds of censorship for example. Censoring and harassing people who think differently will rarely do more than make them angry. Philosophers even centuries ago figured out that free speech is a most essential freedom and must be nearly unlimited in a free society, but it's a constant struggle to maintain this ideal in the face of the fearful and easily offended.

littlestymaar 9mo ago
Free speech is always “free speech under some limits set by laws”, “free speech absolutism” is nonsense (and is only being claimed by people who will censor everything without laws and due process at the instant when they reach power, see Trump and Vance who are currently imposing a censorship never seen in the US in peacetime, or Musk and Twitter).
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the same damn issue. Free speech advocates such as the Jews who rallied to protect the free speech of Nazis in the US decades ago understood very well that any restrictions on speech for any purpose would be used to censor people who desperately need to be allowed to speak. Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part. To the extent he does censor for personal reasons, I must submit that liberals asked for this treatment before he bought it with their constant chanting of "It's a private platform, so free speech does not apply!" I cannot listen to complaints about this until liberals admit that they did censor conservatives, and that they are sorry. The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel. I don't like this at all but these censorious policies will probably be knocked down eventually.
  - notepad0x90 9mo ago
    wait, are you saying people who work for a political administration have the right to say whatever they want and keep their jobs, is that your understanding of free speech? Or am I misunderstanding you? I think you should reed the 1st amendment of the US constitution, free speech in general means the government cannot pass laws to restrict speech made in good-faith. It is solely restricted to the passing of laws and the validity of such laws. It has nothing to do with employer-employee relationships, executive policy or censorship. The government an allow you to say whatever you want and still censor that speech, technically you were allowed to speak, and others were allowed to hear what you said, but in certain communication media where access to that media is not a right, but a privilege, it can do whatever it wants, that's lawful censorship. > Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part > The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel. If you've not been living under a rock for the past half a year or so, seriously, shame on you for defending this current administration in any capacity. truly, one human to another, shame on you! they're literally hunting down critics, breaking into their homes without a warrant and kidnapping them -- we're talking about blond and blue eyed US-born americans here. Trump just started a prosecution of the fed chair (do you know how unthinkable that is??) over renovations or some made up b.s. , and that's not even a political organization, he just doesn't like how the facts of the economy makes him look bad. They're deporting and planning de-naturalizing anyone criticizing the current administration. I don't really have any argument or debate for people like you, how can you tolerate the betrayal of your own country, your own people. the mistreatment of so many people, and the marching on into endless wars and conflicts like this? You don't even get anything out of it, you think you do, but you don't. everyone hurts this way, you lose your country and your home. Please feel some shame. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, i voted for the conservatives myself, this has to do with you and your loyalty to your country first, and patriotism towards your own country. an abandonment of basic humanity. I don't get it, what do you think you will have left even for your own self after all this? You can't even have the bare minimum pride in your country that the poorest trashiest third world countries have after this. I am not speaking in hyperbole at all, are you perhaps stuck in some sort of an informational bubble? a victim of some deliberate disinformation campaign? Even in 2024 I could have given you the benefit of the doubt, but it truly is confounding right now, how you can hold such beliefs without feeling any shame, or any fear or the cataclysm ahead.
notepad0x90 9mo ago
I think it's more that the term "fundamental right" is very powerful so all sorts of parties latch on to it to push their agenda. Free speech is not a fundamental human right. It is a fundamental right of an individual in a democracy however, very important distinction there. There are rights that are fundamental for various reasons, but human rights are NOT rights afforded to humans, but are instead rights humans already have, simply by virtue of being humans. But since even the right to be alive can be taken away, they are universally applied to all humans, but are not universally kept by all humans. The right to live, pursue life and to pursue security of that life are some human rights, and by life or living, i mean merely existing, not dying. at the point of birth, such things are afforded to all humans. This does not mean that the rights can't be taken away, but that to take them away, one needs a reason and an authority to do so. If one commits genocide for example, there is no reason to kill random people you don't know, you may have a reason, but that reason is not related to specific individuals. I think this is very important, because lots of really important rights exist, but they are not human rights. For example to be treated fairly, to be afforded a fair trial, to only hold sane people accountable for their actions,etc.. these are legal rights of individuals that exist within the confines of specific national structures. It maybe morally correct to treat fairly everyone, but it isn't so merely as a consequence of them being human, although I would agree that all people everywhere have that right, because it is the just thing to do. Ultimately, it comes down to what all belief systems of all societies have in common. The things they all agree are rights of humans given to humans simply for being human, those are human rights. For a vast majority of human existence, free speech was not even a civil or governmental right, so it is hard to argue that it is a human right today. But if some day all human governments agree that all humans are afforded free speech, simply because they are humans, then it can become a human right. Human laws are matters of humans agreeing something is a law, rights are in effects laws unto themselves, and laws that can't be enforced are just wish lists.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  I happen to think that free speech is a human right. It amounts to the right to communicate. It is impossible to have effective democracy without free speech. But democracy is not the source of free speech rights. As we are born, we have the right to make sounds and communicate basically just like the animals which do so freely. It is only taken from us by force or social pressures (that probably also require force). I also believe in the fundamental right to self-defense. It is not anti-social to resist physical threats, including the use of physical force against aggressors to the full extent necessary to protect one's self. Why are these natural capabilities and tendencies given the status of "rights"? It boils down to the simple belief that we each have the right to try to be happy and have autonomy. We can't have a free society if people are not allowed to express negative emotions. Likewise, nobody would stand for a civilization that did not grant individuals the legal protections required to be physically safe. That means that the right to self-defense must be respected. We happen to have legal procedures to protect people against defamation and certain other kinds of speech, but the speech in question must be provably false or somehow violating intellectual property and the damages must be significant for anything to be done about it. I think these exceptions can easily get out of hand to the point where free speech is a distant dream. Anyway, I guess the right to free speech has always relied on people to be wise and tolerant enough to not censor each other. Philosophizing about how much censorship is justifiable will not matter if a majority of your neighbors are willing to censor you over random subjective issues like how you make them feel or whether they think your opinions are correct.

littlestymaar 9mo ago

Free speech is always “free speech under some limits set by laws”, “free speech absolutism” is nonsense (and is only being claimed by people who will censor everything without laws and due process at the instant when they reach power, see Trump and Vance who are currently imposing a censorship never seen in the US in peacetime, or Musk and Twitter).

wakawaka28 9mo ago
You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the same damn issue. Free speech advocates such as the Jews who rallied to protect the free speech of Nazis in the US decades ago understood very well that any restrictions on speech for any purpose would be used to censor people who desperately need to be allowed to speak. Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part. To the extent he does censor for personal reasons, I must submit that liberals asked for this treatment before he bought it with their constant chanting of "It's a private platform, so free speech does not apply!" I cannot listen to complaints about this until liberals admit that they did censor conservatives, and that they are sorry. The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel. I don't like this at all but these censorious policies will probably be knocked down eventually.
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  wait, are you saying people who work for a political administration have the right to say whatever they want and keep their jobs, is that your understanding of free speech? Or am I misunderstanding you? I think you should reed the 1st amendment of the US constitution, free speech in general means the government cannot pass laws to restrict speech made in good-faith. It is solely restricted to the passing of laws and the validity of such laws. It has nothing to do with employer-employee relationships, executive policy or censorship. The government an allow you to say whatever you want and still censor that speech, technically you were allowed to speak, and others were allowed to hear what you said, but in certain communication media where access to that media is not a right, but a privilege, it can do whatever it wants, that's lawful censorship. > Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part > The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel. If you've not been living under a rock for the past half a year or so, seriously, shame on you for defending this current administration in any capacity. truly, one human to another, shame on you! they're literally hunting down critics, breaking into their homes without a warrant and kidnapping them -- we're talking about blond and blue eyed US-born americans here. Trump just started a prosecution of the fed chair (do you know how unthinkable that is??) over renovations or some made up b.s. , and that's not even a political organization, he just doesn't like how the facts of the economy makes him look bad. They're deporting and planning de-naturalizing anyone criticizing the current administration. I don't really have any argument or debate for people like you, how can you tolerate the betrayal of your own country, your own people. the mistreatment of so many people, and the marching on into endless wars and conflicts like this? You don't even get anything out of it, you think you do, but you don't. everyone hurts this way, you lose your country and your home. Please feel some shame. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, i voted for the conservatives myself, this has to do with you and your loyalty to your country first, and patriotism towards your own country. an abandonment of basic humanity. I don't get it, what do you think you will have left even for your own self after all this? You can't even have the bare minimum pride in your country that the poorest trashiest third world countries have after this. I am not speaking in hyperbole at all, are you perhaps stuck in some sort of an informational bubble? a victim of some deliberate disinformation campaign? Even in 2024 I could have given you the benefit of the doubt, but it truly is confounding right now, how you can hold such beliefs without feeling any shame, or any fear or the cataclysm ahead.

notepad0x90 9mo ago

I think it's more that the term "fundamental right" is very powerful so all sorts of parties latch on to it to push their agenda. Free speech is not a fundamental human right. It is a fundamental right of an individual in a democracy however, very important distinction there. There are rights that are fundamental for various reasons, but human rights are NOT rights afforded to humans, but are instead rights humans already have, simply by virtue of being humans. But since even the right to be alive can be taken away, they are universally applied to all humans, but are not universally kept by all humans. The right to live, pursue life and to pursue security of that life are some human rights, and by life or living, i mean merely existing, not dying. at the point of birth, such things are afforded to all humans. This does not mean that the rights can't be taken away, but that to take them away, one needs a reason and an authority to do so. If one commits genocide for example, there is no reason to kill random people you don't know, you may have a reason, but that reason is not related to specific individuals. I think this is very important, because lots of really important rights exist, but they are not human rights. For example to be treated fairly, to be afforded a fair trial, to only hold sane people accountable for their actions,etc.. these are legal rights of individuals that exist within the confines of specific national structures. It maybe morally correct to treat fairly everyone, but it isn't so merely as a consequence of them being human, although I would agree that all people everywhere have that right, because it is the just thing to do. Ultimately, it comes down to what all belief systems of all societies have in common. The things they all agree are rights of humans given to humans simply for being human, those are human rights. For a vast majority of human existence, free speech was not even a civil or governmental right, so it is hard to argue that it is a human right today. But if some day all human governments agree that all humans are afforded free speech, simply because they are humans, then it can become a human right. Human laws are matters of humans agreeing something is a law, rights are in effects laws unto themselves, and laws that can't be enforced are just wish lists.

wakawaka28 9mo ago
I happen to think that free speech is a human right. It amounts to the right to communicate. It is impossible to have effective democracy without free speech. But democracy is not the source of free speech rights. As we are born, we have the right to make sounds and communicate basically just like the animals which do so freely. It is only taken from us by force or social pressures (that probably also require force). I also believe in the fundamental right to self-defense. It is not anti-social to resist physical threats, including the use of physical force against aggressors to the full extent necessary to protect one's self. Why are these natural capabilities and tendencies given the status of "rights"? It boils down to the simple belief that we each have the right to try to be happy and have autonomy. We can't have a free society if people are not allowed to express negative emotions. Likewise, nobody would stand for a civilization that did not grant individuals the legal protections required to be physically safe. That means that the right to self-defense must be respected. We happen to have legal procedures to protect people against defamation and certain other kinds of speech, but the speech in question must be provably false or somehow violating intellectual property and the damages must be significant for anything to be done about it. I think these exceptions can easily get out of hand to the point where free speech is a distant dream. Anyway, I guess the right to free speech has always relied on people to be wise and tolerant enough to not censor each other. Philosophizing about how much censorship is justifiable will not matter if a majority of your neighbors are willing to censor you over random subjective issues like how you make them feel or whether they think your opinions are correct.