In the Netherlands Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in 2004. His crime was to point out the oppressive nature of the religion of peace. Pim Fortuijn was shot in Hilversum where he died. His crime was to point out a number of irrational things like the crime waves and who the perpetrators were. There is a politician who is guarded 24 hours a day because he has certain views, some more valid than others. Another politician has to appear in court regularly because of things he says. Mostly what he says is true but truth is hurtful in today's polarised society. Censorship seems to be preferred in Europe especially the EU. We have a bleak future ahead because most of what we are not allowed to speak about relates to a certain ideology, where nothing is tolerated.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
I remember the exact moment I discovered that free speech shifted from being a left wing idea to a right wing idea around 2016. I was shocked. Although I had definitely met the “faux outrage” left way back in the 70s with radical activists when I was a kid, nobody at that time actually begged for government censorship except the fundamentalist Christian right. Until now.
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
I remember being such a fundamentalist Christian. Later on I deeply understood freedom of speech importance. Jesus, who identified himself as the way the truth and the life, spoke truth to power as well as made demands of people to align themselves to truth and righteousness, that made him & his ideas hated, and eventually killed. But he rose... just like truth eventually does. There is a paradox: truth blesses as well as damns. But so do lies, albeit in a perverse manner.
@@TheVeganVicar A child is not covered by the same rules as an adult. Until they are old enough to fully appreciate and take responsibility for whatever they do, they are not part of the equation. A religious interpretation of FS is useless to those who don't kowtow to anyone's big daddy in the sky or other 'other worldly' 'higher power' of any description. Therefore, the rules must cover for everyone, not just your favoured ones. A Christian's version of free speech, for example, is VERY different to that of 'the religion of peace' as it likes to style itself (in stark contradiction to the evidence and the source material). You can correct a child either by talking to them (if they understand enough to get it) or a clip round the ear (frowned upon these days, but it's the oldest approach used by animals and it generally works provided the child recognises this is what happens when, for example, they tell a parent to F Off). With other adults, however, speech, unrestricted, articulate and, preferably, calm is your best approach. As the video points out, hurty words are a lot better than the violence that could ensure if hurty words are banned and people seeking redress of grievances are silenced. If people are denied the right to express their frustrations with a system, their only remaining recourse is violence if they're to correct the system. I'd prefer to hear their grievances than face their weapons. Blocking free speech drives the disaffected underground, where their frustrations and anger can fester. Better to have it out in the open. In sum, your comment suggests you watched maybe a minute of the video and then switched off and decided to preach. Maybe you'd be better of watching all of it, thinking how it might apply in your case, and correcting yourself as JS Mill suggests.
Speech is a social construct but if I call someone a jerk they know what I mean. Money is a social construct but if I promise you some your not going to accept “money is just a social construct” as an excuse not to pay you.
I think it is severly misunderstood how closely linked speech, thought, and communication are. As though you could have a free thinking and creative society making progress with limits on speech. You can understand how getting your thoughts down on paper through writing requires a consistently working writing implement. But it feels harder to conceptualise that you need the same kind of consistency, freedom, and room to make errors with speech. Free speech is like the utility of having an error correcting mechanism. Controls on free speech is like a word processor that just deleted errors outright so you couldn't even refine them, explore them, or understand 'why they're wrong.' Which human could speak their thoughts out loud as they come and have them all be fully formed and polished ideas without needing to be critiqued or refined? How many would try and how much progress would be made if at each stage you risked being gagged?
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:57 *🛡️ The distinction between speech and violence is crucial for peaceful coexistence and societal progress.* 02:18 *💼 Free speech historically resolves disputes without resorting to violence, crucial for democratic societies.* 04:49 *🌐 Free speech protects minority opinions and the powerless from powerful censorship.* 06:13 *🛋️ Freedom of speech extends beyond government actions, encompassing societal values and cultural practices.* 08:55 *🚒 The analogy of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater misrepresents free speech principles.* 10:58 *📜 John Stuart Mill's arguments for free speech remain relevant and undefeated.* 12:09 *📊 Hate speech laws in Europe have not reduced intolerance, contrasting with trends in the United States.* 14:46 *🎭 Free speech transcends political labels and is essential in polarized societies.* 15:28 *🏛️ Speech restrictions in the name of civility are often defined by the powerful, impacting diverse cultural norms.* 16:19 *🌍 Free speech is a relatively new idea, crucial for cultural diversity and understanding human perceptions.* Made with HARPA AI
I have found that "words are violence" usually means that they cannot defend an untestable, incoherent or factually blatantly false but cherished self-serving assertion, and that makes them have very big huge very special victimhood feelings.
I was talking to a European Holocaust “skeptic” and he asked why, if the evidence for the Holocaust was so overwhelming, Holocaust denial is outlawed. What, after all, are they so afraid of? When I told him Holocaust denial is lawful in the US, he was deeply shaken.
The falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is a legitimate restriction on freedom of speech as it would be still a problem in pulling the fire alarm for uses other than actual fire. Ideas considered harmful because it might be used to resist government corruption or overreach is what the damn first amendment was designed to protect.
It isn't a legitimate restriction per se. It's one of those examples where freedom of speech comes with responsibility and possible consequences. Like fake b0mb thr3ats, falsely creating the perception of danger to others is reprehensible (as opposed to warning others of real danger). Do it, sure - but just like going up to a bouncer and exercising your free speech right to say, 'I did yo' mamma', it won't end well
Regarding 7, I'm afraid I don't think it was reducing free speech that increased intolerance. It was the EU opening the doors to people who do not share European values. As those numbers went up, certain crimes (like r4p3) went up and the perpetrators were overwhelmingly from one (non-European) group. At that point, people got angry. They expressed that anger verbally and suddenly they were told it was hate speech and they weren't allowed. Subsequently, we have seen people expressing themselves physically because they weren't listening to, so it's kind of right, but blocking free speech wasn't the cause of the intolerance. That came from bitter and painful experience.
Freedom to talk is an inalienable right, it is not given, it’s inherent - it’s the same as living or breathing. Freedom is the right to live without being ruled over by another person. If someone thinks they have a right to rule over you, then they believe that they have a right to enslave you to serve them. If someone wants to limit your ability to speak your mind, then they are attempting to rule over and enslave you to their will. No man has a right to rule over another man; limiting any other persons inalienable right is always enslavement to another man. A man that believes he has a right to rule over you is insane and a direct threat to the inalienable right to your own existence. Censored speech is the cornerstone of enslavement. Free speech is the cornerstone of freedom…
Assertion five doesn’t explain how we should deal with people who yell fire in a theater. It shouldn’t be illegal to yell fire in any arena, but if you falsely do and people are hurt, then you should be liable for the injuries that occurred, the loss revenue of the venue, and the loss revenue of the participants who didn’t get to watch the movie who should be reimbursed for the price of their tickets. Making any speech illegal is enslavement. BUT - on the other hand, if your speech incites violence, you should be held liable for any real harm it causes, just as you should be for falsely yelling fire in a theater…
Yes, but how is inciting violence defined, like are you coercing violence. Can anyone claim a statement as a justification to attack people and now you're liable? Cause there's a lot of confrontational words that need to be said to fix modern problems, and we need the freedom to say them.
Most of these are correct, but the response to point 4 is a bit weak. The fundamental issue that this fails to address is that if you try to make free speech all encompassing to the point where you’re forcing people with private platforms to give you mandatory access to them, or start telling people they can’t boycott stuff they don’t like based on opinions they find offensive, then you are actually then limiting the free speech rights of those people, as a boycott is effectively a form of speech and is very much part of the non-violent contest of ideas that free speech is meant to protect. So the XKD comic is right in that sense.
I did not enjoy at all the corporate Memphis art, like seen in 11:48. You would think a platform like Quillette would have a bit more soul than relying on the most tired cliche. Seeing it everywhere is demoralizing on account of that reason alone. Some suggestions: a style like 1930-1950s newspaper cartoons had, a style like 1800s political cartoons had, any other expressionist style, heaven forbid a modern style like manga-inspired etc. That would literally be too edgy, too radical. Weird.
Free speech used to be someone standing on a soapbox and no law will be made to prevent that. A private company is not required to provide a taller soapbox so someone’s speech can reach more ears.
Except for when that company is given legal protections in exchange for being a public platform and protecting that free speech So when they don’t do their job they should lose the protections
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
I think the rebuke of 'Assertion 5' isn't quite right, or is a bit too strong. 'Powder keg' is an accurate metaphor for some social situations where misuse of speech is equivalent in destructive power to the use of a bomb or gun. Just imagine saying something ugly, even if true, about Mohammed in the midst of economic demonstrations in France, for example. Free speech absolutism would be a hollow excuse as the bodies were counted. Also, a society can't just adopt radical speech freedom... it has to educate each new generation and carefully moderate immigration first, so there is a critical mass of sensible citizens who understand its importance. The US perhaps had such a populace at one time (remember how 'piss Christ' only caused disgust and annoyance?), but it surely doesn't have it now, and the EU really failed in education and immigration.
"Free speech absolutism would be a hollow excuse as the bodies were counted" 1. Free speech doesn't dismiss accountability. It was never meant to be an excuse to not mean what you say, but a protection to make sure you say what you mean. Someone can be banned from a private platform, fired, disqualified for a competition, etc for things they said and it's not a free speech violation. 2. While a person can and should be held accountable for what they said, they absolutely can not be held accountable for what people did with the ideas they shared. "Bodies being counted" is not the fault of who said something ugly about Mohammed, but rather a glimpse at how already rotten a lot of people are in the french society, to the point a mere phrase would bring them over the edge for violent behavior. This isn't an argument against free speech, for the contrary, it shows how a censored society is constantly building silent tension as opposing factions grow divided.
The problem with the term "free speech" is that it carries an implicit definition that is not apparent to an idiot. Free speech in America means something different than in, say, France. In America, it is a negative freedom, meaning you cannot interfere with violence or force, and that it can be protected with force. Conversely, it does not mean that it cannot incite violence or be used coercively. In short, you are allowed to say whatever you want so long as you understand that there are certain consequences that come with it, like any action in life. It has the clause of being free from correction but not consequence.
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
In the Netherlands Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in 2004. His crime was to point out the oppressive nature of the religion of peace. Pim Fortuijn was shot in Hilversum where he died. His crime was to point out a number of irrational things like the crime waves and who the perpetrators were. There is a politician who is guarded 24 hours a day because he has certain views, some more valid than others. Another politician has to appear in court regularly because of things he says. Mostly what he says is true but truth is hurtful in today's polarised society. Censorship seems to be preferred in Europe especially the EU. We have a bleak future ahead because most of what we are not allowed to speak about relates to a certain ideology, where nothing is tolerated.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Don’t you like commie europe?
I hope you do, commie europe doesn’t not approve of dissent.
I remember the exact moment I discovered that free speech shifted from being a left wing idea to a right wing idea around 2016. I was shocked. Although I had definitely met the “faux outrage” left way back in the 70s with radical activists when I was a kid, nobody at that time actually begged for government censorship except the fundamentalist Christian right. Until now.
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
The difference being that fundamentalist Christianity wasn't taught in schools and universities.
I remember being such a fundamentalist Christian. Later on I deeply understood freedom of speech importance.
Jesus, who identified himself as the way the truth and the life, spoke truth to power as well as made demands of people to align themselves to truth and righteousness, that made him & his ideas hated, and eventually killed.
But he rose... just like truth eventually does.
There is a paradox: truth blesses as well as damns. But so do lies, albeit in a perverse manner.
It shouldn't "belong" to any one ideology, that's the problem.
@@TheVeganVicar A child is not covered by the same rules as an adult. Until they are old enough to fully appreciate and take responsibility for whatever they do, they are not part of the equation.
A religious interpretation of FS is useless to those who don't kowtow to anyone's big daddy in the sky or other 'other worldly' 'higher power' of any description. Therefore, the rules must cover for everyone, not just your favoured ones. A Christian's version of free speech, for example, is VERY different to that of 'the religion of peace' as it likes to style itself (in stark contradiction to the evidence and the source material).
You can correct a child either by talking to them (if they understand enough to get it) or a clip round the ear (frowned upon these days, but it's the oldest approach used by animals and it generally works provided the child recognises this is what happens when, for example, they tell a parent to F Off). With other adults, however, speech, unrestricted, articulate and, preferably, calm is your best approach. As the video points out, hurty words are a lot better than the violence that could ensure if hurty words are banned and people seeking redress of grievances are silenced. If people are denied the right to express their frustrations with a system, their only remaining recourse is violence if they're to correct the system. I'd prefer to hear their grievances than face their weapons. Blocking free speech drives the disaffected underground, where their frustrations and anger can fester. Better to have it out in the open.
In sum, your comment suggests you watched maybe a minute of the video and then switched off and decided to preach. Maybe you'd be better of watching all of it, thinking how it might apply in your case, and correcting yourself as JS Mill suggests.
We need this more than ever
Because?
@@TheVeganVicar Take a guess.
Speech is a social construct but if I call someone a jerk they know what I mean. Money is a social construct but if I promise you some your not going to accept “money is just a social construct” as an excuse not to pay you.
Why don't you mansplain why gender is a social construct?
I think it is severly misunderstood how closely linked speech, thought, and communication are.
As though you could have a free thinking and creative society making progress with limits on speech.
You can understand how getting your thoughts down on paper through writing requires a consistently working writing implement.
But it feels harder to conceptualise that you need the same kind of consistency, freedom, and room to make errors with speech.
Free speech is like the utility of having an error correcting mechanism. Controls on free speech is like a word processor that just deleted errors outright so you couldn't even refine them, explore them, or understand 'why they're wrong.'
Which human could speak their thoughts out loud as they come and have them all be fully formed and polished ideas without needing to be critiqued or refined?
How many would try and how much progress would be made if at each stage you risked being gagged?
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:57 *🛡️ The distinction between speech and violence is crucial for peaceful coexistence and societal progress.*
02:18 *💼 Free speech historically resolves disputes without resorting to violence, crucial for democratic societies.*
04:49 *🌐 Free speech protects minority opinions and the powerless from powerful censorship.*
06:13 *🛋️ Freedom of speech extends beyond government actions, encompassing societal values and cultural practices.*
08:55 *🚒 The analogy of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater misrepresents free speech principles.*
10:58 *📜 John Stuart Mill's arguments for free speech remain relevant and undefeated.*
12:09 *📊 Hate speech laws in Europe have not reduced intolerance, contrasting with trends in the United States.*
14:46 *🎭 Free speech transcends political labels and is essential in polarized societies.*
15:28 *🏛️ Speech restrictions in the name of civility are often defined by the powerful, impacting diverse cultural norms.*
16:19 *🌍 Free speech is a relatively new idea, crucial for cultural diversity and understanding human perceptions.*
Made with HARPA AI
Great article, adding more words for algorithm.
This was fantastic, thank you.
Well done. Thank you.
I have found that "words are violence" usually means that they cannot defend an untestable, incoherent or factually blatantly false but cherished self-serving assertion, and that makes them have very big huge very special victimhood feelings.
Great stuff, thank you!!
We need free speech. In my country, free speech is under threat by the powers that be
Well argued
I was talking to a European Holocaust “skeptic” and he asked why, if the evidence for the Holocaust was so overwhelming, Holocaust denial is outlawed. What, after all, are they so afraid of?
When I told him Holocaust denial is lawful in the US, he was deeply shaken.
The falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is a legitimate restriction on freedom of speech as it would be still a problem in pulling the fire alarm for uses other than actual fire. Ideas considered harmful because it might be used to resist government corruption or overreach is what the damn first amendment was designed to protect.
It’s not even free speech anyway it’s a call to action
It isn't a legitimate restriction per se. It's one of those examples where freedom of speech comes with responsibility and possible consequences. Like fake b0mb thr3ats, falsely creating the perception of danger to others is reprehensible (as opposed to warning others of real danger). Do it, sure - but just like going up to a bouncer and exercising your free speech right to say, 'I did yo' mamma', it won't end well
Regarding 7, I'm afraid I don't think it was reducing free speech that increased intolerance. It was the EU opening the doors to people who do not share European values. As those numbers went up, certain crimes (like r4p3) went up and the perpetrators were overwhelmingly from one (non-European) group. At that point, people got angry. They expressed that anger verbally and suddenly they were told it was hate speech and they weren't allowed. Subsequently, we have seen people expressing themselves physically because they weren't listening to, so it's kind of right, but blocking free speech wasn't the cause of the intolerance. That came from bitter and painful experience.
@@socratesrocks1513, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Fantastic.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to be wrong.
If you have ever been wrong in anything, ever, you should be glad it isn't illegal.
Freedom to talk is an inalienable right, it is not given, it’s inherent - it’s the same as living or breathing. Freedom is the right to live without being ruled over by another person. If someone thinks they have a right to rule over you, then they believe that they have a right to enslave you to serve them. If someone wants to limit your ability to speak your mind, then they are attempting to rule over and enslave you to their will. No man has a right to rule over another man; limiting any other persons inalienable right is always enslavement to another man. A man that believes he has a right to rule over you is insane and a direct threat to the inalienable right to your own existence. Censored speech is the cornerstone of enslavement. Free speech is the cornerstone of freedom…
Assertion five doesn’t explain how we should deal with people who yell fire in a theater. It shouldn’t be illegal to yell fire in any arena, but if you falsely do and people are hurt, then you should be liable for the injuries that occurred, the loss revenue of the venue, and the loss revenue of the participants who didn’t get to watch the movie who should be reimbursed for the price of their tickets. Making any speech illegal is enslavement. BUT - on the other hand, if your speech incites violence, you should be held liable for any real harm it causes, just as you should be for falsely yelling fire in a theater…
Yes, but how is inciting violence defined, like are you coercing violence.
Can anyone claim a statement as a justification to attack people and now you're liable?
Cause there's a lot of confrontational words that need to be said to fix modern problems, and we need the freedom to say them.
Most of these are correct, but the response to point 4 is a bit weak. The fundamental issue that this fails to address is that if you try to make free speech all encompassing to the point where you’re forcing people with private platforms to give you mandatory access to them, or start telling people they can’t boycott stuff they don’t like based on opinions they find offensive, then you are actually then limiting the free speech rights of those people, as a boycott is effectively a form of speech and is very much part of the non-violent contest of ideas that free speech is meant to protect. So the XKD comic is right in that sense.
Agreed
I did not enjoy at all the corporate Memphis art, like seen in 11:48. You would think a platform like Quillette would have a bit more soul than relying on the most tired cliche. Seeing it everywhere is demoralizing on account of that reason alone. Some suggestions: a style like 1930-1950s newspaper cartoons had, a style like 1800s political cartoons had, any other expressionist style, heaven forbid a modern style like manga-inspired etc.
That would literally be too edgy, too radical. Weird.
To each his own.
Free speech used to be someone standing on a soapbox and no law will be made to prevent that. A private company is not required to provide a taller soapbox so someone’s speech can reach more ears.
Except for when that company is given legal protections in exchange for being a public platform and protecting that free speech
So when they don’t do their job they should lose the protections
Are there any good anti speech arguments
Ad #1 3:34 I hope this trend does not continue.
free speech until you criticize a certain country
Those against free speech don't have to speak! What is the problem?
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
Those against free speech want the speech of others curtailed but never their own.
The act of totalitarians.
Free speach ends where lies, propaganda, threats and supporting crim1nals begins...
They won’t let us look at big tatas because of WOKE!
Your definitions don't spply to me. Words are not as violent as a fist in your face.
I think the rebuke of 'Assertion 5' isn't quite right, or is a bit too strong. 'Powder keg' is an accurate metaphor for some social situations where misuse of speech is equivalent in destructive power to the use of a bomb or gun. Just imagine saying something ugly, even if true, about Mohammed in the midst of economic demonstrations in France, for example. Free speech absolutism would be a hollow excuse as the bodies were counted. Also, a society can't just adopt radical speech freedom... it has to educate each new generation and carefully moderate immigration first, so there is a critical mass of sensible citizens who understand its importance. The US perhaps had such a populace at one time (remember how 'piss Christ' only caused disgust and annoyance?), but it surely doesn't have it now, and the EU really failed in education and immigration.
"Free speech absolutism would be a hollow excuse as the bodies were counted"
1. Free speech doesn't dismiss accountability. It was never meant to be an excuse to not mean what you say, but a protection to make sure you say what you mean. Someone can be banned from a private platform, fired, disqualified for a competition, etc for things they said and it's not a free speech violation.
2. While a person can and should be held accountable for what they said, they absolutely can not be held accountable for what people did with the ideas they shared. "Bodies being counted" is not the fault of who said something ugly about Mohammed, but rather a glimpse at how already rotten a lot of people are in the french society, to the point a mere phrase would bring them over the edge for violent behavior. This isn't an argument against free speech, for the contrary, it shows how a censored society is constantly building silent tension as opposing factions grow divided.
The problem with the term "free speech" is that it carries an implicit definition that is not apparent to an idiot.
Free speech in America means something different than in, say, France.
In America, it is a negative freedom, meaning you cannot interfere with violence or force, and that it can be protected with force.
Conversely, it does not mean that it cannot incite violence or be used coercively.
In short, you are allowed to say whatever you want so long as you understand that there are certain consequences that come with it, like any action in life.
It has the clause of being free from correction but not consequence.
Free speech is and always has been a negative freedom. Positive freedom doesn't work anyway and is just a made up concept with no grasp on reality.
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
Believe in a pragmatic worldview. Don't believe in relativism.
FYI, the concept of free speech is hyper-relativism.
People who throw hands when someone is insulting them are deranged in nature..