Free Speech? Absolutely.

the only people against free speech are trump, cherry picking what people should be viewing and those neo-nazis unhappy people protest their circle jerks.
the tory party in my country are unhappy the media is reporting on the car crash that is brexit but they aren't telling people to view alex jones as the only truth speaker on the planet either.

a reply to: growler

the only people against free speech are trump, cherry picking what people should be viewing and those neo-nazis unhappy people protest their circle jerks.
the tory party in my country are unhappy the media is reporting on the car crash that is brexit but they aren't telling people to view alex jones as the only truth speaker on the planet either.

That's false.

What I am reading in to from your reply, is that the general stance is that we are all responsible for what we say and where that leads. In the meantime, no judgement should be released or dictated. To interfear with someone elses free speech, would only agitate. Of course, one is free to agitate, but one will one way or another face the consequences of that! which is totally natural and may I say cool! If you dont believe in anything being cool, thats cool aslo.a reply to: LesMisanthrope

a reply to: ancientthunder

What I am reading in to from your reply, is that the general stance is that we are all responsible for what we say and where that leads. In the meantime, no judgement should be released or dictated. To interfear with someone elses free speech, would only agitate. Of course, one is free to agitate, but one will one way or another face the consequences of that! which is totally natural and may I say cool! If you dont believe in anything being cool, thats cool aslo.a reply to:

We are responsible for what we say, yes, but I would argue we are not responsible for where that leads. Each of us are responsible for our own thoughts and actions, not for the thoughts and actions of others. For example, if I was to be cursed at, defamed, and ridiculed through words, it is my choice, not theirs, as to whether I am injured by what they say, and whether I react to them or not.

The notion that words have power is a very old superstition. It goes back at least to the ancient Greeks. Plato warned us of the Sophists for two reasons, namely, of their pursuit of power and success over truth and wisdom, and their overestimation of the power of human speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh this is no good. This kind of talk is not going to look good on your resume!
Free speech is a dangerous tool that can unveil the truth, and truth in this day and age, is rarely pretty.

Better let the illusion of freedom run it's course, after all, it's worked so well for thousands of years.

Great Op by the way, it cuts right to the bone of an age old problem.
Without freedom of any kind, we remain in status quo.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s not a surprise to find it in the reasoning of would-be censors.

On the campaign trail, where he was not constrained by Twitter’s character limit, Mr. Trump was more expansive.

“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
Can Trump Change Libel Laws? MARCH 30, 2017

Which of those do you prefer to determine what you can and cannot say?

Libel and Slander laws are state level. I don't have any problem with the current standards of false statements, harmful to reputation or livelihood, maliciously or recklessly made.

Some countries have ridiculous standards like harmful to reputation, even if the statements are true. I'd have a real problem with that. I'd probably support any means to try to get to the U.S. standard.

The crime would be poisoning people with strychnine, maybe aggravated assault, or murder.

Yes, under current U.S. law, that would be so. Under a system of absolute freedom of speech, the "vitamin" salesman would be free to continue his trade. The deaths would be ruled as suicides, since no one but the victim did the physical act of swallowing the "vitamins".

There is a difference between ideological free speech be it political, religious, or opinion and free speech absolutism which would consider deliberate lies told as factual statements in order to defraud or confuse to also be protected speech.

Grifters, con artists, and fraudsters do not contribute to a free and open democracy in my opinion.

a reply to: pthena

Actually I was commenting on your statement that censorship is a fact of life, that anything else is some weird fantasy. Slavery was once so ubiquitous that abolition was also fantasy.

The salesman would be charged with poisoning.

Your distinction between ideological and free speech absolutism is not required, if not superfluous.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

your statement that censorship is a fact of life

What I meant was States with laws and courts are a fact of life. I've never lived under any other situation.
Laws get changed and court rulings are made and sometimes overturned.

Dred Scott wasn't overturned until a Constitutional Amendment was enacted. I don't think that debate about slavery was censored before or after Scott v. Sanford. When legal remedy was unavailable, illegal (underground railroad) took place. Therefore, the same acts of civil disobedience may be vilified by most at one time, then lauded by most in another time, after public opinion and laws change.

Your distinction between ideological and free speech absolutism is not required

I wasn't aware that Ideology, as a word, is so new (1796).

I found a quote that seems true when no other context is given:

In the Althusserian sense, ideology is "the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence".
...
For Althusser, beliefs and ideas are the products of social practices, not the reverse. His thesis that "ideas are material" is illustrated by the "scandalous advice" of Pascal toward unbelievers: "kneel and pray, and then you will believe". What is ultimately ideological for Althusser are not the subjective beliefs held in the conscious "minds" of human individuals, but rather discourses that produce these beliefs, the material institutions and rituals that individuals take part in without submitting it to conscious examination and critical thinking.
...
(Perhaps the most accessible source for the near-original meaning of ideology is Hippolyte Taine's work on the Ancien Régime (the first volume of "Origins of Contemporary France"). He describes ideology as rather like teaching philosophy by the Socratic method, but without extending the vocabulary beyond what the general reader already possessed, and without the examples from observation that practical science would require.
...
The term "ideology" has dropped some of its pejorative sting, and has become a neutral term in the analysis of differing political opinions and views of social groups
Ideology

Sometimes civil disobedience provides the physical and observable example by which ideology is modified in the Althusserian sense, speaking even when not protected by law.

doesn't the idea of Truth, and adherence to it, itself commit a form of censorship? Science, too. Even religion. We believe that these things are right, valid and true set against wrong or false. Surely Lies are made to fall before the Truth? It is a form of censorship to ask someone to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? But surely, such is a valid censorship? If one is taking hemlock medicinally, one wants the true dosage so as not to kill themselves, and many other such examples. Same is true for things mankind sees as virtues: Kindness and Empathy, Justice and Mercy, each of these imposes a strict and narrow censorship to filter out good from bad, the same censorship that allows humans to become good from bad.

Once we fail to censor what we want from our own minds, and start to ask that others censor for us, is the point at which we give up our freedoms and start to allow others to control our lives.

In what reality does ANYONE WANT others to decide if something is inappropriate or not worth you hearing it?

That's why we should learn to give even the most hateful a voice to what lil audience they will have, because it serves as a great example of how dumb people are still and also serves as a balance against personal freedoms from being infringed upon.

What if the same hate speech that some want to be illegal, ends up being applied to sports fans? Like in another thread, then what about court battles, presidential elections maybe?

Where exactly would it end? Answer: It wouldn't, once others saw the power grab was possible, ways would be enacted to create further control.

Transparency equates to freedom, not censorship.

-----------------

Another example:

What if you weren't allowed to eat whatever you wanted, but only what was good for you? Sounds innocent enough, until you learn no more foods you love.

a reply to: pthena

Sometimes civil disobedience provides the physical and observable example by which ideology is modified in the Althusserian sense, speaking even when not protected by law.

I used the phrase "collective wisdom of generations" to articulate why free speech works. It is tried and true in every phase of history. The pros outweigh the cons so immensely that I don't think any other principle can surpass it.

It is the founding principle of free societies. Generations of trial and error (a la Karl Popper), criticism and defence of ideas and principles, allow human beings to modify the customs and institutions in a non-violent fashion, and that is only possible with free speech.

Civil disobedience could end in bloodshed.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What do you think is more effective to defend people's right to free speech in the US for example, protesting (rallies, etc.) or the following technique (note the ending)?

First Amendment Champions

a reply to: whereislogic

What do you think is more effective to defend people's right to free speech in the US for example, protesting (rallies, etc.) or the following technique (note the ending)?

Most effective? Civil disobedience.

When proselytizing or preaching on street corners was not protected by courts, JWs did it anyway. Then it went to court.

When refusal to salute the flag was unacceptable, JWs refused to anyway. That seems to be a current discussion still.

When voting became mandatory, JWs still didn't vote. That hasn't happened in U.S. yet. It has happened in other countries.

When U.S. drafted people for war, JWs went to jail instead. Now we have slightly better conscientious objection policies.