Philosophical Questions: Free Speech
Nov. 2nd, 2024 02:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithPeople have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.
Should there be limitations on the right to free speech?
This is a bit nonsensical, because when there are limitations, it's not free speech anymore. It's a privilege instead of a right. The things people most want to limit include the things most important to talk about, that free speech is designed to protect, like telling your government when it fucks up; and things that humans really, really want to do like enjoy pr0n that squicks the tightasses. The whole point to free speech is being able to say things that other people wildly disagree with.
Also, free speech is a crucial safety valve. If people can talk about a problem, they are less likely to resort to violence. If talking about it is illegal, as well hang for a sheep as a lamb, and they're more likely to riot. There's only one end to putting a sealed pot on a hot stove. That's not politics, that's physics.
Should there be limitations on the right to free speech?
This is a bit nonsensical, because when there are limitations, it's not free speech anymore. It's a privilege instead of a right. The things people most want to limit include the things most important to talk about, that free speech is designed to protect, like telling your government when it fucks up; and things that humans really, really want to do like enjoy pr0n that squicks the tightasses. The whole point to free speech is being able to say things that other people wildly disagree with.
Also, free speech is a crucial safety valve. If people can talk about a problem, they are less likely to resort to violence. If talking about it is illegal, as well hang for a sheep as a lamb, and they're more likely to riot. There's only one end to putting a sealed pot on a hot stove. That's not politics, that's physics.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-11-02 08:41 pm (UTC)Just because a government says something is so or is legal, does not make it true or ethical. Governments are made up of people, people can be and often are wrong, either by accident or design.
True is what reality is and making laws that say it isn't is on a par with making Pi equal to three. You can say it all you like, make everyone believe you, but that still isn't going make a damn whit of difference to reality. Deny climate change all you like, but those Malibu beach houses are still going bye-bye.
Respectful is likewise demonstrably so, saying something to cause deliberate harm or continuing to cause harm after it's been pointed out is not respectful. Likewise, if you make an accusation then you had better have evidence to back it up. Respect is treating the person you disagree with as a person.
Fair is harder, as you say, everyone has a different definition usually involving things being unfair in their favour. But Equality is a good start... even if it's you hate everyone equally.
And yes.. filters are a very good idea. People may have a right to free speech, but likewise I have a right to ignore the heck out of them if I disagree with what they're saying. The nut job on tv can rant about the evils of whomever he hates, but I can always turn it off. The bigot on social media has a right to post his screeds, and get blocked. Or if they insist on posting them in communities that do not share their 'values' then they're going to get permabanned and they can take it elsewhere.
To borrow a quote from Alt.Callahan's from many years ago: Free Speech is an absolute right, being listened to is a privilege that needs to be earned.