12 ms·

I've been moving more and more to the notion that freedom of speech is an all or nothing proposition. On a technical level when dealing with systems that prote

I've been moving more and more to the notion that freedom of speech is an all or nothing proposition. On a technical level when dealing with systems that protect the transfer of information such as encryption, this is an absolute, because the technology that provides the security (and thus freedom) cares not the content and any backdoor would destroy all integrity regardless of how it is used. But there has been a notion that laws, rights, and duties do not have the same requirement. We can build compromises in the laws, so we should be able to create a system where only the stuff that should be banned is banned and all other speech is free, no? But now I doubt that, as any ban sacrifices the integrity of the entire system. Maybe in theory it is still possible, but as many of us have seen time and time again, theory and practice differ far more in practice than in theory. From this, I've moved to adopting an ever stricter view of all speech as being free. I will not say it is perfect as it does have flaws. But the flaws are a small price to pay to ensure one of the axiomatic rights is defended. For without free speech, we lose the power to criticize, to discuss, to be democratic. While I know the author isn't regarded quite as highly in the UK and the US, I think the following passage captures the importance of the exchange of information being free. >The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

collyw 11y ago
I thought that it was fairly obvious that it is an all or nothing. "Freedom of speech, except you can't say that" isn't freedom of speech.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  What utter nonsense. "Freedom of speech, except you can't harass rape victims". It's still freedom of speech.
  - AcerbicZero 11y ago
    I'm not sure how you jumped from free speech, to harassing rape victims. Last I checked, harassment requires something more than just freely speaking an opinion once or twice.
    - Retric 11y ago
      IMO, freedom of speech refers to content, not necessarily delivery. There really seems to be three types of speech. Private (home), subscribed (church, book, TV show), broadcast (commercial, billboard sign, office cooler, email inbox)). The difference being how wide the audience, and how much freedom they have in listening to you. The problem IMO is ‘the internet’ mixes the three basic types of speech. Things that feel private often don't end up that way. PS: A mortician making a book based on autopsy photos seems reasonable. But, sending those same photos to a parole officer or someone else you know less likely to be acceptable. Though in book form it is once again probably ok, same content different context.
      - AcerbicZero 11y ago
        I think I see where you're going, and you do raise a valid point. My comment was aimed more at the abrupt logical jump made by the user above, from free speech to rape harassment.
  - mason240 11y ago
    Except now you are defining what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of speech. This is exactly what Cameron wants to do.
    - hahainternet 11y ago
      No country with 'freedom of speech' does not define acceptable and unacceptable. Unrestricted freedom is anarchy. Give me ultimate freedom of speech and I'll stand outside your house with a megaphone calling your family illegitimate so you can't sleep. (Ok I won't, but I promise you people will)
- rmc 11y ago
  By that logic, no-where as freedom of speech, and it's highly unlikely that anywhere every will, since it will require abolishing many laws that many people desire (like medical privacy or copyright).
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    You ever notice how medical privacy always has the 'except as required by law'. It prevents them blabbing about it to your friends, but not to the government. Also, contracts would resolve this. You can restrict your speech per a voluntary contract (such as an NDA). The key difference here being a contract is voluntarily entered into while a law is enforced. If you want to work for the medical field, you'll have to enter into a contract to stay silent about key information.
    - rmc 11y ago
      > Also, contracts would resolve this. You can restrict your speech per a voluntary contract (such as an NDA) Yes in theory. In practice too much of the population are bad at legal issues and would not ensure they get their doctor to sign a NDA and would be screwed.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        They already sign waivers that result in them being screwed. It is pretty much standard practice these days.
    - po8crg 11y ago
      If freedom of speech is absolute, then it means that any contractual clause purporting to restrict it is void. In the same way that any contractual clause purporting to enslave a natural person, even with their consent, is still void.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        >If freedom of speech is absolute, then it means that any contractual clause purporting to restrict it is void. No it doesn't. >In the same way that any contractual clause purporting to enslave a natural person, even with their consent, is still void. Such a contract is banned because of how one-sided it would be. Even a contract for selling property can be overturned if it is too one-sided. The difference being is that there are many fair contracts for exchanging property while there are none for enslavement. Compare this to indenture servitude, where some variants are allowed, though they include some way to break away. Consider that a person owning their own creations, something largely considered quite absolute, does not preclude them entering in a contract where such creations are owned by the other party. The core difference here is that the government cannot punish you for information you gave or received. You can have a civil case for breaking a fair contract you consented to (and if court ordered damages are not paid, you can then be guilty of contempt of court).
- po8crg 11y ago
  "freedom of speech, except you can't lie under oath in the witness box"?
  - collyw 11y ago
    I am sure plenty of people have.
higherpurpose 11y ago
The Washington Post had a recent article on this saying that basically there is no "hate speech" loophole in the 1st Amendment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015... The problem (as usual) with the US law system is that it allows unconstitutional laws to pass through the legislative and executive bodies (which aren't specialized in the Constitution, just in the "will of the People") without official judicial preview. It can then take decades (if ever) to verify if a law that makes something illegal is actually constitutional (at the Supreme Court). That's how you end up with unconstitutional laws 5 decades later, and some lower Court judges just end up upholding that law because they don't want to upset the cart, allowing for the existence of the law decades more. See the recent ruling on Patriot Act's bulk collection. It took 14 years just to reach an Appeals Court. If the USA Freedom Act reinstates some of Patriot Act's unconstitutional powers, it may take another 14 years before it reaches the same level.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Bullshit. The bulk connection was not found unconstitutional, it was found illegal because the Patriot act didn't authorise it.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    you might want to look up Constitutional avoidance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance to explain why they ruled the way they ruled.
vacri 11y ago
I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; and whatever political affiliation the reader might have, Lawtonfogle is the extreme opposite... and thinks your fashion sense sucks. Ultimately, Lawtonfogle can't act, can't sing, and can only dance a little. It's actually pretty hard for someone with little or no resources to fight defamation as it is. Take away their recourse in an 'all or nothing free speech!' drive, and it's game over. It's also hardly 'a small price', if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up. And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void. Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry. The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  So basically people shouldn't lie about things that harm other people? Having the potential for civil action over defamation does not exclude people's right to say what they want. They are merely restricted to saying accurate things or else having to pay some money to the person they've lied about. I do find it slightly surreal that defamation is being discussed in the context of the UK - a country with (even following the excellent reforms of 2013) the most ridiculous libel laws around.
  - vacri 11y ago
    I wasn't talking in context of the UK. I was talking in context of the GP's all-or-nothing-free-speech position. In an all or nothing system, there's no such thing as taking someone to court over defamation, because any restriction on speech is verboten.
bsenftner 11y ago
I've always felt that "free speech" is only one side of the coin, our civilization needs to promote the education of critical thinking. In a free speech society, critical thought is essential, as it is the tool to filter all speech one encounters, from political to commercial to religious to nonsense.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  It is important, so important that much of modern day schooling is designed to brutally eviscerate it.
- adnam 11y ago
  It was Thomas Paine who said it was only the absence of knowledge that could keep a man ignorant; but while he maybe kept ignorant he cannot be MADE ignorant. Therefore free society should recognise people as rational beings and leave them to discover the truth by their own devices. Incidentally, most arguments for totalitarianism start with the opposite view: people need protecting from "dangerous" ideas. The truth will out. You can't fool all the people all the time. Etc.
  - kenbellows 11y ago
    It's not about protection from dangerous ideas, it's about arming the populace with the tools to more readily determine for themselves which ideas are dangerous, and to protect themselves. And the thing is, you don't really need to fool all the people, just most. Unfortunately, it seems that willful ignorance is the norm in many areas, and while I agree that reality has a tendency to win out in the long term, it can do a lot of damage in the short term.
    - guelo 11y ago
      What you're saying sounds good and is one of the reasons for the creation of public schools. But it also creates an opening for government indoctrination. Then there's the opposite problem, privatized indoctrination where billionaires like News Corp's Murdoch get to influence millions with his propaganda. Then the internet was supposed to save us but it turns out people like living in their own indoctrination bubbles and the internet is more than happy to provide it for them.
woah 11y ago
What about child porn?
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Pictures of people being harmed (child abuse images are not porn) are not speech they are evidence of a crime. EDIT To make things clear. I used the words child abuse images. This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers. We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    But evidence of a crime is not usually illegal to possess, is it?
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      Punish the category of crime aggressively & severely enough, and evidence of such crimes will be hard to come by. Include lewd abuse of that evidence in the scope of "libel", and the occurrence of such crime can be reduced further. A key problem which this solves, and which is a terrible side-effect of such law as currently implemented, is crushing punishment of those oblivious to their possession of such content (say, malware surreptitiously caches such content on your computer, then anonymously sics CSI SVU et al on you).
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Pictures of people being harmed (child abuse images are not porn) are not speech they are evidence of a crime. No, they are a crime in se. Child pornography is special in that possession of child pornography is automatically a crime, even if the person didn't know the pictures were of children[0], or even if they person didn't know they had them. Let's say your 16-year-old friend, as a joke, puts a nude photo of himself/herself on your phone. If a policeman searches you and finds it, and you admit you were in possession of the phone before the search, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography, even if you can prove you didn't know the photo was there. I'll say it again: if you admit to possessing something that is later found to have contained child pornography while it was in your possession, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography. [0] e.g. a 17-year-old who looks much older
ikeboy 11y ago
I used to feel like this as well. Then I read http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slo... , and started thinking some restrictions may work.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  The article seems to be suggesting that it's alright to limit freedom of speech a little, as long as some "suitable" Schelling points are established. But that doesn't work because Schelling points are subjective. You can't reliably convince everyone that some specific arbitrary threshold should never be crossed, because it will surely lead to doom. Some might agree, and others will see things in a different way. That's why it's pointless to even try, and that's why it's pointless to think about freedom of speech in terms of Schelling points. So how about just pretending there's a Schelling point at 100% of freedom of speech? Any concession from that will inevitably lead to more, and besides, losing our freedom of speech is not a clear-cut phenomenon anyway. It's a bit like new currency entering circulation at various points in the economy - some people's perceptions of what's acceptable will shift before others', but will in turn affect the perceptions of others around them. Freedom of speech rots in arbitrary, unpredictable and uneven ways.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > That's why it's pointless to even try When applied to some action that hasn't been tried yet, I'm not sure that statement has ever been true. In fact, I largely see the advancement of humanity as people trying pointless things until they stumble upon the few things that work. I can imagine there have been many times and many peoples in the past that when considering their own government, thought that human nature and the the nature of power would never allow a different governing system than the one they knew. Things change, and it's largely due to a few doing what the majority consider "pointless", and accomplishing the "impossible".
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      > When applied to some action that hasn't been tried yet, I'm not sure that statement has ever been true. Alright. Try melting steel with your mind. It's reasonably likely that's never been attempted before, so I guess it's not pointless to try, right? You're basically just saying "extreme statements are unlikely to be true", but while that's often an accurate observation, especially when discussing groups of people, it's not really relevant to what I said. On the other hand, what I said earlier boils down to "it's pointless to attempt something that can't be done". I fail to see how that warrants lodging a complaint like yours.
rayiner 11y ago
There are two dimensions here: when is speech protected, and what is speech? If speech is just speech, it's easy to give it very broad protections. But we also consider physical actions to be speech (e.g. protesting). Clearly you can't allow people to engage in any action as long as they call it free expression. So it's a "nothing" proposition, where the government can ban any sort of protest activity.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Even spoken words can be magnified til they cause physical damage. In general, it is the information itself that must be held immune from restriction, not the physical expression via sound, light, or other physical medium. Also, I'm not as clear yet on my views of the rights of protesting and assembly. I consider these important, but I have not yet thought through them and they may not need to be so binary in nature.
- john_b 11y ago
  I think it's relatively easy to distinguish "speech" from "speech plus other action," such as protesting. Even someone who supported free speech and a person's right to protest wouldn't likely support them protesting on their front lawn because other rights besides freedom of speech exist (such as property rights). I don't think it's controversial in Western societies that freedom of expression, especially in spoken or written form, is one of the most important rights of a free society, and as such is worthy of protection. Other actions associated with that speech may not be protected, so we need to distinguish between them.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Is it? Publishing an anti-government article in a newspaper, something we think as the core of free speech, is actually speech (the writing) + action (publishing). So is putting anything up on facebook or sending it over the intertubes. You can apply a binary protection to speech, but that just moves the battleground to defining "speech" versus "not speech." The U.S. approach is a pretty good one. It defines "speech" as almost anything expressive, and focuses the analysis instead on whether any restraints on speech involve the content of the speech. Protesting is protected in the U.S., which it would not be under a "speech" versus "speech plus other action" dichotomy. The attended activity may be limited, but not based on the content of the speech. Hate speech laws have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, because they ban particular types of expression based on content.
ctdonath 11y ago
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... Well put ... and does not absolve anyone of the consequences of their speech. People keep forgetting that exercise of rights have consequences for which they may/must be held accountable for. Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  > Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say. In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? It's your fault for saying whatever you said! You should have been more careful!
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    There are consequences and there are government consequences. The latter is bad, the former falls under free speech. A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc. (There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. Do I really have to explain the concept? Saying that "I have it on clear authority that vacri & sillygoose are thieves; liars; adulterers; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; etc" is of itself not actionable, but if such libel can be adjudicated the cause of otherwise baseless abuse by society inflicted on vacri & sillygoose then yes I can be incarcerated as a danger to society. Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
learnstats2 11y ago
Free speech as a right to criticise government is exceptionally important. Free speech as a right to abuse people is not something I want to see in Europe. I don't see these as being the same. I think there is something wrong with the common English language usage that we use the same term to cover multiple definitions.
- bmmayer1 11y ago
  That is the question of course: who gets to decide what constitutes 'abuse'? Do you trust anyone in your government to decide which of the words, writings, blog posts, comments or tweets you make constitute 'abuse' of another person? Given that the go-to rhetoric of so many political and religious groups is to be "offended" as a substitute for being right, laws that restrict 'hate' speech or 'abuse' speech create more legal cover for the people who are least willing to cope with criticism than the people who are most vulnerable to abuse. And, usually, you will find that the people who are least willing to cope with criticism are the people who should be most criticized, because no one's ideas are sacrosanct. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to listen, or not to listen. Abuse and hate can be countered with more robust freedom of speech, more social shunning, more economic boycotting--it does not require government intervention to curb all the 'isms'.
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    What are you talking about? How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? The government should decide because that's what the government is for. If the government doesn't get it right, then the people should hold the government accountable. In my opinion, Western governments lack sufficient accountability, but I still trust them to decide more than I trust an all-or-nothing anti-philosophical principle.
    - undersuit 11y ago
      >How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? You can make the argument that by boycotting abusive business, like for example Chick fil A and their actions against homosexuals, you speak against the business in the only language they understand, money.
jwally 11y ago
Completely Agree. To play devil's advocate, what about treason (or some other form of state secret sharing)? When Julius (and allegedly) Ethyl Rosenberg shared secrets from the Manhattan Project with the Soviets, should it have been a crime, let alone a capital one? Conversely, if the government can say that certain speech is Treason, what stops it from declaring any speech it doesn't like Treason?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  I think the notion of security through obscurity has been sufficiently handled. Also, the ability to classify nothing is preferable to the ability to classify anything as the power will be abused with increasing extents.
  - tzs 11y ago
    I don't see how you get a security through obscurity angle out of what you were replying to, assuming you are referring to the well known cryptography saying.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      It is based on the notion that the government must hide secrets for the sake of national security.
      - tzs 11y ago
        That's not what "security through obscurity" is about. The admonishment against "security through obscurity" in cryptographic circles is about not relying on your adversary's ignorance of your systems to protect your secrets. So, for instance, if you are using cryptography to secure a transmission, you don't rely on eavesdroppers not knowing what algorithms and protocols you are using. You rely on them not knowing your keys.
kingmanaz 11y ago
Rather than freedom being defined as "doing what one wants", Kant defined freedom as man "rising above his animal instincts" (sp). In other words, it's perfectly natural and convenient to behave like the "free" and "extreme" tattooed apes pandered to in modern television commercials, whereas it takes relative effort be polite and follow the golden rule. Ask yourself who is more "free", the chair-throwers on Jerry Springer, or, Scott's Rob Roy who was shackled for refusing to lie about a stranger. America, given its near constant prating about freedom, is itself in dire need of a dialectic on its essence.
- angersock 11y ago
  That's well and good, but you've done little to address the notion of free speech. Sure sounds pretty, though.
- anExcitedBeast 11y ago
  You are talking about two distinct concepts. The Constitutional Convention was concerned about individual liberty and protection from overbearing government, not personal enlightenment.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  It takes some herculean logic twisting to claim that someone who is not shackled is less free than someone who is. If you are locked away and your speach censored, then rising above your animal instincts does you, at best, only personal good. If you are not locked away, then rising above your animal instincts could let you do good to some larger fraction of the world.
- api 11y ago
  You're conflating private spirituality and philosophy with civic matters like law; inner with outer. The latter is powerless to affect the former. The chair thrower and the erudite intellectual must be subject to the same law. Otherwise the law becomes arbitrary.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
angersock 11y ago
I would consider myself a free-speech absolutist. I support, unconditionally, anybody's ability to say anything without government intervention. Unfortunately, the only checks on this vast power--vast especially now given the ability of mass point-to-point communication--are caused by a decent education and the ability to use said education to think critically about things. The sad fact of the matter, though, is that at least half of everyone is below-average in this regard, and not only not worthy of such freedom but indeed likely to make life miserable for the other half by way of doing such things as parroting nonsense or abuse.
aagha 11y ago
Though I agree, I can't help but think of Anwar al-Awlaki [0]--the first US citizen killed by JSOC [1] for what seems to be his expression of anti-US sentiment (and calls for violence against America & Americans). That said, he was a) an American citizen and b) expressing what one might consider his freedom of speech. Is speech protected only in so far as that we agree with it and that should someone say something we're not comfortable with (e.g., "I hate the US policy in Country X and think the US should be stopped") we should have the right to stop them, or should there be no barriers on it whatsoever? 0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Command http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Comman...
- bmmayer1 11y ago
  His situation was markedly different. He actually took up arms against the United States. That isn't protected by the First Amendment.
snickerdoodles 11y ago
and the other amendments (to the US Constitution) are all absolute too. It's not a right if it can be restricted.

collyw 11y ago

I thought that it was fairly obvious that it is an all or nothing. "Freedom of speech, except you can't say that" isn't freedom of speech.

hahainternet 11y ago
What utter nonsense. "Freedom of speech, except you can't harass rape victims". It's still freedom of speech.
- AcerbicZero 11y ago
  I'm not sure how you jumped from free speech, to harassing rape victims. Last I checked, harassment requires something more than just freely speaking an opinion once or twice.
  - Retric 11y ago
    IMO, freedom of speech refers to content, not necessarily delivery. There really seems to be three types of speech. Private (home), subscribed (church, book, TV show), broadcast (commercial, billboard sign, office cooler, email inbox)). The difference being how wide the audience, and how much freedom they have in listening to you. The problem IMO is ‘the internet’ mixes the three basic types of speech. Things that feel private often don't end up that way. PS: A mortician making a book based on autopsy photos seems reasonable. But, sending those same photos to a parole officer or someone else you know less likely to be acceptable. Though in book form it is once again probably ok, same content different context.
    - AcerbicZero 11y ago
      I think I see where you're going, and you do raise a valid point. My comment was aimed more at the abrupt logical jump made by the user above, from free speech to rape harassment.
- mason240 11y ago
  Except now you are defining what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of speech. This is exactly what Cameron wants to do.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    No country with 'freedom of speech' does not define acceptable and unacceptable. Unrestricted freedom is anarchy. Give me ultimate freedom of speech and I'll stand outside your house with a megaphone calling your family illegitimate so you can't sleep. (Ok I won't, but I promise you people will)
rmc 11y ago
By that logic, no-where as freedom of speech, and it's highly unlikely that anywhere every will, since it will require abolishing many laws that many people desire (like medical privacy or copyright).
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  You ever notice how medical privacy always has the 'except as required by law'. It prevents them blabbing about it to your friends, but not to the government. Also, contracts would resolve this. You can restrict your speech per a voluntary contract (such as an NDA). The key difference here being a contract is voluntarily entered into while a law is enforced. If you want to work for the medical field, you'll have to enter into a contract to stay silent about key information.
  - rmc 11y ago
    > Also, contracts would resolve this. You can restrict your speech per a voluntary contract (such as an NDA) Yes in theory. In practice too much of the population are bad at legal issues and would not ensure they get their doctor to sign a NDA and would be screwed.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      They already sign waivers that result in them being screwed. It is pretty much standard practice these days.
  - po8crg 11y ago
    If freedom of speech is absolute, then it means that any contractual clause purporting to restrict it is void. In the same way that any contractual clause purporting to enslave a natural person, even with their consent, is still void.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >If freedom of speech is absolute, then it means that any contractual clause purporting to restrict it is void. No it doesn't. >In the same way that any contractual clause purporting to enslave a natural person, even with their consent, is still void. Such a contract is banned because of how one-sided it would be. Even a contract for selling property can be overturned if it is too one-sided. The difference being is that there are many fair contracts for exchanging property while there are none for enslavement. Compare this to indenture servitude, where some variants are allowed, though they include some way to break away. Consider that a person owning their own creations, something largely considered quite absolute, does not preclude them entering in a contract where such creations are owned by the other party. The core difference here is that the government cannot punish you for information you gave or received. You can have a civil case for breaking a fair contract you consented to (and if court ordered damages are not paid, you can then be guilty of contempt of court).
po8crg 11y ago
"freedom of speech, except you can't lie under oath in the witness box"?
- collyw 11y ago
  I am sure plenty of people have.

higherpurpose 11y ago

The Washington Post had a recent article on this saying that basically there is no "hate speech" loophole in the 1st Amendment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015... The problem (as usual) with the US law system is that it allows unconstitutional laws to pass through the legislative and executive bodies (which aren't specialized in the Constitution, just in the "will of the People") without official judicial preview. It can then take decades (if ever) to verify if a law that makes something illegal is actually constitutional (at the Supreme Court). That's how you end up with unconstitutional laws 5 decades later, and some lower Court judges just end up upholding that law because they don't want to upset the cart, allowing for the existence of the law decades more. See the recent ruling on Patriot Act's bulk collection. It took 14 years just to reach an Appeals Court. If the USA Freedom Act reinstates some of Patriot Act's unconstitutional powers, it may take another 14 years before it reaches the same level.

ikeboy 11y ago
Bullshit. The bulk connection was not found unconstitutional, it was found illegal because the Patriot act didn't authorise it.
- protomyth 11y ago
  you might want to look up Constitutional avoidance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance to explain why they ruled the way they ruled.

vacri 11y ago

I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; and whatever political affiliation the reader might have, Lawtonfogle is the extreme opposite... and thinks your fashion sense sucks. Ultimately, Lawtonfogle can't act, can't sing, and can only dance a little. It's actually pretty hard for someone with little or no resources to fight defamation as it is. Take away their recourse in an 'all or nothing free speech!' drive, and it's game over. It's also hardly 'a small price', if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up. And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void. Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry. The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
So basically people shouldn't lie about things that harm other people? Having the potential for civil action over defamation does not exclude people's right to say what they want. They are merely restricted to saying accurate things or else having to pay some money to the person they've lied about. I do find it slightly surreal that defamation is being discussed in the context of the UK - a country with (even following the excellent reforms of 2013) the most ridiculous libel laws around.
- vacri 11y ago
  I wasn't talking in context of the UK. I was talking in context of the GP's all-or-nothing-free-speech position. In an all or nothing system, there's no such thing as taking someone to court over defamation, because any restriction on speech is verboten.

bsenftner 11y ago

I've always felt that "free speech" is only one side of the coin, our civilization needs to promote the education of critical thinking. In a free speech society, critical thought is essential, as it is the tool to filter all speech one encounters, from political to commercial to religious to nonsense.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
It is important, so important that much of modern day schooling is designed to brutally eviscerate it.
adnam 11y ago
It was Thomas Paine who said it was only the absence of knowledge that could keep a man ignorant; but while he maybe kept ignorant he cannot be MADE ignorant. Therefore free society should recognise people as rational beings and leave them to discover the truth by their own devices. Incidentally, most arguments for totalitarianism start with the opposite view: people need protecting from "dangerous" ideas. The truth will out. You can't fool all the people all the time. Etc.
- kenbellows 11y ago
  It's not about protection from dangerous ideas, it's about arming the populace with the tools to more readily determine for themselves which ideas are dangerous, and to protect themselves. And the thing is, you don't really need to fool all the people, just most. Unfortunately, it seems that willful ignorance is the norm in many areas, and while I agree that reality has a tendency to win out in the long term, it can do a lot of damage in the short term.
  - guelo 11y ago
    What you're saying sounds good and is one of the reasons for the creation of public schools. But it also creates an opening for government indoctrination. Then there's the opposite problem, privatized indoctrination where billionaires like News Corp's Murdoch get to influence millions with his propaganda. Then the internet was supposed to save us but it turns out people like living in their own indoctrination bubbles and the internet is more than happy to provide it for them.

woah 11y ago

What about child porn?

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Pictures of people being harmed (child abuse images are not porn) are not speech they are evidence of a crime. EDIT To make things clear. I used the words child abuse images. This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers. We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  But evidence of a crime is not usually illegal to possess, is it?
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    Punish the category of crime aggressively & severely enough, and evidence of such crimes will be hard to come by. Include lewd abuse of that evidence in the scope of "libel", and the occurrence of such crime can be reduced further. A key problem which this solves, and which is a terrible side-effect of such law as currently implemented, is crushing punishment of those oblivious to their possession of such content (say, malware surreptitiously caches such content on your computer, then anonymously sics CSI SVU et al on you).
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Pictures of people being harmed (child abuse images are not porn) are not speech they are evidence of a crime. No, they are a crime in se. Child pornography is special in that possession of child pornography is automatically a crime, even if the person didn't know the pictures were of children[0], or even if they person didn't know they had them. Let's say your 16-year-old friend, as a joke, puts a nude photo of himself/herself on your phone. If a policeman searches you and finds it, and you admit you were in possession of the phone before the search, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography, even if you can prove you didn't know the photo was there. I'll say it again: if you admit to possessing something that is later found to have contained child pornography while it was in your possession, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography. [0] e.g. a 17-year-old who looks much older

ikeboy 11y ago

I used to feel like this as well. Then I read http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slo... , and started thinking some restrictions may work.

sillygoose 11y ago
The article seems to be suggesting that it's alright to limit freedom of speech a little, as long as some "suitable" Schelling points are established. But that doesn't work because Schelling points are subjective. You can't reliably convince everyone that some specific arbitrary threshold should never be crossed, because it will surely lead to doom. Some might agree, and others will see things in a different way. That's why it's pointless to even try, and that's why it's pointless to think about freedom of speech in terms of Schelling points. So how about just pretending there's a Schelling point at 100% of freedom of speech? Any concession from that will inevitably lead to more, and besides, losing our freedom of speech is not a clear-cut phenomenon anyway. It's a bit like new currency entering circulation at various points in the economy - some people's perceptions of what's acceptable will shift before others', but will in turn affect the perceptions of others around them. Freedom of speech rots in arbitrary, unpredictable and uneven ways.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > That's why it's pointless to even try When applied to some action that hasn't been tried yet, I'm not sure that statement has ever been true. In fact, I largely see the advancement of humanity as people trying pointless things until they stumble upon the few things that work. I can imagine there have been many times and many peoples in the past that when considering their own government, thought that human nature and the the nature of power would never allow a different governing system than the one they knew. Things change, and it's largely due to a few doing what the majority consider "pointless", and accomplishing the "impossible".
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    > When applied to some action that hasn't been tried yet, I'm not sure that statement has ever been true. Alright. Try melting steel with your mind. It's reasonably likely that's never been attempted before, so I guess it's not pointless to try, right? You're basically just saying "extreme statements are unlikely to be true", but while that's often an accurate observation, especially when discussing groups of people, it's not really relevant to what I said. On the other hand, what I said earlier boils down to "it's pointless to attempt something that can't be done". I fail to see how that warrants lodging a complaint like yours.

rayiner 11y ago

There are two dimensions here: when is speech protected, and what is speech? If speech is just speech, it's easy to give it very broad protections. But we also consider physical actions to be speech (e.g. protesting). Clearly you can't allow people to engage in any action as long as they call it free expression. So it's a "nothing" proposition, where the government can ban any sort of protest activity.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Even spoken words can be magnified til they cause physical damage. In general, it is the information itself that must be held immune from restriction, not the physical expression via sound, light, or other physical medium. Also, I'm not as clear yet on my views of the rights of protesting and assembly. I consider these important, but I have not yet thought through them and they may not need to be so binary in nature.
john_b 11y ago
I think it's relatively easy to distinguish "speech" from "speech plus other action," such as protesting. Even someone who supported free speech and a person's right to protest wouldn't likely support them protesting on their front lawn because other rights besides freedom of speech exist (such as property rights). I don't think it's controversial in Western societies that freedom of expression, especially in spoken or written form, is one of the most important rights of a free society, and as such is worthy of protection. Other actions associated with that speech may not be protected, so we need to distinguish between them.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Is it? Publishing an anti-government article in a newspaper, something we think as the core of free speech, is actually speech (the writing) + action (publishing). So is putting anything up on facebook or sending it over the intertubes. You can apply a binary protection to speech, but that just moves the battleground to defining "speech" versus "not speech." The U.S. approach is a pretty good one. It defines "speech" as almost anything expressive, and focuses the analysis instead on whether any restraints on speech involve the content of the speech. Protesting is protected in the U.S., which it would not be under a "speech" versus "speech plus other action" dichotomy. The attended activity may be limited, but not based on the content of the speech. Hate speech laws have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, because they ban particular types of expression based on content.

ctdonath 11y ago

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... Well put ... and does not absolve anyone of the consequences of their speech. People keep forgetting that exercise of rights have consequences for which they may/must be held accountable for. Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say.

sillygoose 11y ago
> Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say. In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? It's your fault for saying whatever you said! You should have been more careful!
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  There are consequences and there are government consequences. The latter is bad, the former falls under free speech. A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc. (There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)
- ctdonath 11y ago
  No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. Do I really have to explain the concept? Saying that "I have it on clear authority that vacri & sillygoose are thieves; liars; adulterers; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; etc" is of itself not actionable, but if such libel can be adjudicated the cause of otherwise baseless abuse by society inflicted on vacri & sillygoose then yes I can be incarcerated as a danger to society. Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.

learnstats2 11y ago

Free speech as a right to criticise government is exceptionally important. Free speech as a right to abuse people is not something I want to see in Europe. I don't see these as being the same. I think there is something wrong with the common English language usage that we use the same term to cover multiple definitions.

bmmayer1 11y ago
That is the question of course: who gets to decide what constitutes 'abuse'? Do you trust anyone in your government to decide which of the words, writings, blog posts, comments or tweets you make constitute 'abuse' of another person? Given that the go-to rhetoric of so many political and religious groups is to be "offended" as a substitute for being right, laws that restrict 'hate' speech or 'abuse' speech create more legal cover for the people who are least willing to cope with criticism than the people who are most vulnerable to abuse. And, usually, you will find that the people who are least willing to cope with criticism are the people who should be most criticized, because no one's ideas are sacrosanct. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to listen, or not to listen. Abuse and hate can be countered with more robust freedom of speech, more social shunning, more economic boycotting--it does not require government intervention to curb all the 'isms'.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  What are you talking about? How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? The government should decide because that's what the government is for. If the government doesn't get it right, then the people should hold the government accountable. In my opinion, Western governments lack sufficient accountability, but I still trust them to decide more than I trust an all-or-nothing anti-philosophical principle.
  - undersuit 11y ago
    >How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? You can make the argument that by boycotting abusive business, like for example Chick fil A and their actions against homosexuals, you speak against the business in the only language they understand, money.

jwally 11y ago

Completely Agree. To play devil's advocate, what about treason (or some other form of state secret sharing)? When Julius (and allegedly) Ethyl Rosenberg shared secrets from the Manhattan Project with the Soviets, should it have been a crime, let alone a capital one? Conversely, if the government can say that certain speech is Treason, what stops it from declaring any speech it doesn't like Treason?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I think the notion of security through obscurity has been sufficiently handled. Also, the ability to classify nothing is preferable to the ability to classify anything as the power will be abused with increasing extents.
- tzs 11y ago
  I don't see how you get a security through obscurity angle out of what you were replying to, assuming you are referring to the well known cryptography saying.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It is based on the notion that the government must hide secrets for the sake of national security.
    - tzs 11y ago
      That's not what "security through obscurity" is about. The admonishment against "security through obscurity" in cryptographic circles is about not relying on your adversary's ignorance of your systems to protect your secrets. So, for instance, if you are using cryptography to secure a transmission, you don't rely on eavesdroppers not knowing what algorithms and protocols you are using. You rely on them not knowing your keys.

kingmanaz 11y ago

Rather than freedom being defined as "doing what one wants", Kant defined freedom as man "rising above his animal instincts" (sp). In other words, it's perfectly natural and convenient to behave like the "free" and "extreme" tattooed apes pandered to in modern television commercials, whereas it takes relative effort be polite and follow the golden rule. Ask yourself who is more "free", the chair-throwers on Jerry Springer, or, Scott's Rob Roy who was shackled for refusing to lie about a stranger. America, given its near constant prating about freedom, is itself in dire need of a dialectic on its essence.

angersock 11y ago
That's well and good, but you've done little to address the notion of free speech. Sure sounds pretty, though.
anExcitedBeast 11y ago
You are talking about two distinct concepts. The Constitutional Convention was concerned about individual liberty and protection from overbearing government, not personal enlightenment.
aidenn0 11y ago
It takes some herculean logic twisting to claim that someone who is not shackled is less free than someone who is. If you are locked away and your speach censored, then rising above your animal instincts does you, at best, only personal good. If you are not locked away, then rising above your animal instincts could let you do good to some larger fraction of the world.
api 11y ago
You're conflating private spirituality and philosophy with civic matters like law; inner with outer. The latter is powerless to affect the former. The chair thrower and the erudite intellectual must be subject to the same law. Otherwise the law becomes arbitrary.
ams6110 11y ago
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

angersock 11y ago

I would consider myself a free-speech absolutist. I support, unconditionally, anybody's ability to say anything without government intervention. Unfortunately, the only checks on this vast power--vast especially now given the ability of mass point-to-point communication--are caused by a decent education and the ability to use said education to think critically about things. The sad fact of the matter, though, is that at least half of everyone is below-average in this regard, and not only not worthy of such freedom but indeed likely to make life miserable for the other half by way of doing such things as parroting nonsense or abuse.

aagha 11y ago

Though I agree, I can't help but think of Anwar al-Awlaki [0]--the first US citizen killed by JSOC [1] for what seems to be his expression of anti-US sentiment (and calls for violence against America & Americans). That said, he was a) an American citizen and b) expressing what one might consider his freedom of speech. Is speech protected only in so far as that we agree with it and that should someone say something we're not comfortable with (e.g., "I hate the US policy in Country X and think the US should be stopped") we should have the right to stop them, or should there be no barriers on it whatsoever? 0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Command http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Comman...

bmmayer1 11y ago
His situation was markedly different. He actually took up arms against the United States. That isn't protected by the First Amendment.

snickerdoodles 11y ago

and the other amendments (to the US Constitution) are all absolute too. It's not a right if it can be restricted.