3 ms·

I disagree with your position. When we regulate free speech -- in any way whatsoever -- we open ourselves up to greater regulation of free speech. Free speech

I disagree with your position. When we regulate free speech -- in any way whatsoever -- we open ourselves up to greater regulation of free speech. Free speech is a special privilege in that only unrestricted free speech can argue against restrictions on free speech. Once you grant restrictions against free speech, you open yourself up to a position where your speech becomes so restricted that you become unable to even argue why it should be less restricted. Furthermore I strongly disagree that restrictions on speech should be relative to either the social position of the speaker, or the harms posed by the speaker. If our justification for preventing speech is that the speaker's speech could be mistaken as the official position of some group (in this case the TSA), then this gives us a legitimation to shut down all speech, as we can simply twist the speaker's position as being representative of some group to which they're tenuously related. A woman wants to speak out unpopularly against x? Well, we can claim she represents all women, and her speaking out would sour the position of the public towards women. A black man wants to speak out against unpopular y? Same argument. Jewish? Same argument. And so on. This is why speech is an individual right, regardless of circumstance. As for the (in my opinion, unpersuasive) argument that the harm caused by speech should be legitimation to close down certain speech, no speech in-and-of itself is harmful. Speech is just speech, and cannot itself be harmful. It is people's reactions to speech which causes harm. Even if we claim certain classes of speech (say, yelling fire) have predictable outcomes that can cause harm, we also have to accept that harmful speech can sometimes be necessary. When the founding fathers spoke out against the tyranny of the British (or so I hear; I'm British!), this lead to a civil war which cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. Same again when Lincoln spoke out against the separatist south. Same again when Churchill spoke out against the Nazi threat. Yet few would argue the harms caused by these pieces of speech should cause them to be banned, even though these pieces of speech resulted in the deaths of millions. This means that we cannot be logically consistent when we claim to ban speech based upon harm, so we either have to change our justification (i.e. admit that it's not really harm we're avoiding, but specific types of harm), or admit that we're being illogical in selecting lesser harms (discomfort felt by non-Americans, in your example) as justification to shut down speech, and greater harms (the deaths of millions, as above) as protected speech. Honestly, free speech is simply too fundamental to both democracy and philosophical/scientific progress to tamper with. No matter what lesser right you put up against it, you'd have a hard time convincing me that it should trump free speech, the right which underlies our very society.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I'm not proposing to regulate speech. I'm proposing to regulate people's ability to leverage their position as government officials to emphasize their speech. When you speak in uniform or publicize the fact of your position as a public employee, you're no longer speaking solely for yourself, but wrapping yourself in the mantle of authority. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Furthermore I strongly disagree that restrictions on speech should be relative to either the social position of the speaker, or the harms posed by the speaker. If our justification for preventing speech is that the speaker's speech could be mistaken as the official position of some group (in this case the TSA), then this gives us a legitimation to shut down all speech, as we can simply twist the speaker's position as being representative of some group to which they're tenuously related. A woman wants to speak out unpopularly against x? Well, we can claim she represents all women, and her speaking out would sour the position of the public towards women. A black man wants to speak out against unpopular y? Same argument. Jewish? Same argument. And so on. This is why speech is an individual right, regardless of circumstance. No, that's bollocks because employment is a bilateral contractual relationship. I don't choose to be a man nor is the fact of my masculinity subject to the agreement of the male community, therefore it's meaningless for me to say that I speak for all mean by virtue of happening to be one. Someone in a position of authority in an organization by definition stands in an agency relationship to that organization. The very word authority implies an ability to act as the of author of that organization's decisions. As for the (in my opinion, unpersuasive) argument that the harm caused by speech should be legitimation to close down certain speech I'm not making any such argument. If you think that, you have wholly misunderstood my position and I apologize for my lack of clarity in explaining.

anigbrowl 13y ago

I'm not proposing to regulate speech. I'm proposing to regulate people's ability to leverage their position as government officials to emphasize their speech. When you speak in uniform or publicize the fact of your position as a public employee, you're no longer speaking solely for yourself, but wrapping yourself in the mantle of authority. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Furthermore I strongly disagree that restrictions on speech should be relative to either the social position of the speaker, or the harms posed by the speaker. If our justification for preventing speech is that the speaker's speech could be mistaken as the official position of some group (in this case the TSA), then this gives us a legitimation to shut down all speech, as we can simply twist the speaker's position as being representative of some group to which they're tenuously related. A woman wants to speak out unpopularly against x? Well, we can claim she represents all women, and her speaking out would sour the position of the public towards women. A black man wants to speak out against unpopular y? Same argument. Jewish? Same argument. And so on. This is why speech is an individual right, regardless of circumstance. No, that's bollocks because employment is a bilateral contractual relationship. I don't choose to be a man nor is the fact of my masculinity subject to the agreement of the male community, therefore it's meaningless for me to say that I speak for all mean by virtue of happening to be one. Someone in a position of authority in an organization by definition stands in an agency relationship to that organization. The very word authority implies an ability to act as the of author of that organization's decisions. As for the (in my opinion, unpersuasive) argument that the harm caused by speech should be legitimation to close down certain speech I'm not making any such argument. If you think that, you have wholly misunderstood my position and I apologize for my lack of clarity in explaining.