[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?

[cardgame]

Well, try arguing with libertarians. See if they have any "actual politics". I'm not a libertarian myself, but I at least realize that there is an argument to be had. To dismiss the entire right wing spectrum like that seems very arrogant and/or ignorant

It's an interesting thought experiment, but quickly runs its course and hardly anything to base policy on.

edit: capital-L Libertarians is what I refer to. You know... Americans. otherwise libertarianism is simply an authoritarian-or-not modifier of other stances, not an entire stance unto itself.

 

[Hehehe]

It's an interesting thought experiment, but quickly runs its course and hardly anything to base policy on.

Someone living in the echo chamber opposite from yours could say the exact same thing about your beliefs and policies

 

[Traitorfish]

Someone living in the echo chamber opposite from yours could say the exact same thing about your beliefs and policies

"I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[metalhead]

I think that the very fact that you think this way shows just how sheltered you are, and how sorely lacking the left is in any kind of meaningful discussion on actual politics. I can't expect you to agree with Trump, or to vote for him, can you at least bring yourself to understand why some other people would? Can you bring yourself to imagine that there might be some actual issues that people have with the left's agenda and policy proposals?

There is a really weird juxtaposition here where you both label the left as lacking in meaningful political discussion, but then define Trump votes as reasonable as a negative response to the left's agenda and policy.

If the left's policy and agenda is defining both sides of the political spectrum, perhaps the left isn't the side lacking in meaningful policy or politics.

 

[Hehehe]

There is a really weird juxtaposition here where you both label the left as lacking in meaningful political discussion, but then define Trump votes as reasonable as a negative response to the left's agenda and policy.

If the left's policy and agenda is defining both sides of the political spectrum, perhaps the left isn't the side lacking in meaningful policy or politics.

You do understand how a two party system works right? In a two party system, both parties are going to define their agendas in opposition to the other party, at least to some extent. Not only that, you seem to have a rather simplistic view of Trump's agenda. A lot of it was opposed by the conservative party as well.

 

[Yavid]

A common misconception about free speech is that we don't truly have free speech. We have speech free from government control. Your employer, the public at large, universities (the list goes on and on) are not required to give you your free speech rights.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I feel like this thread could really do with some concrete examples to chew over. It seems to be largely an exercise in shouting past each other at the moment.

 

[Wastl]

A common misconception about free speech is that we don't truly have free speech. We have speech free from government control. Your employer, the public at large, universities (the list goes on and on) are not required to give you your free speech rights.

Indeed. In fact, preventing them from reacting to what a person has said would be a violation of their freedom of speech (under that warped understanding of what free speech is). That's the funny thing about people that take that kind of position, they don't even realise how their own opinion is a paradox. It is logically impossible to have someone speaking out against something be free speech, while someone speaking out against the person who spoke out is somehow not being free speech. One cannot protect a person because of "free speech" by denying everyone else the ability to speak out or react to it, without at the same time denying a different person the right to free speech.

There is a reason why free speech is exclusively about being free from persecution by the government, because you couldn't possibly go any further without restricting the free speech of other people.

This completely illogical approach, alongside the asinine "marketplace of ideas" concept, is basically the worst stuff people have come up with when it comes to the principle of free speech.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Indeed. In fact, preventing them from reacting to what a person has said would be a violation of their freedom of speech (under that warped understanding of what free speech is). That's the funny thing about people that take that kind of position, they don't even realise how their own opinion is a paradox. It is logically impossible to have someone speaking out against something be free speech, while someone speaking out against the person who spoke out is somehow not being free speech. One cannot protect a person because of "free speech" by denying everyone else the ability to speak out or react to it, without at the same time denying a different person the right to free speech.

There is a reason why free speech is exclusively about being free from persecution by the government, because you couldn't possibly go any further without restricting the free speech of other people.

This completely illogical approach, alongside the asinine "marketplace of ideas" concept, is basically the worst stuff people have come up with when it comes to the principle of free speech.

This is why we need to have examples. This appears to be a strawman as I can't think of any time I've ever seen a "free speech advocate" make demands that other people not be allowed to voice their disagreement with what they say. That would indeed be obviously logically inconsistent, which is probably why it doesn't really happen. It's usually more like "don't hit me over the head with a bike lock" or "don't pull fire alarms to stop others from speaking to people who want to hear them, in venues that have agreed to host them".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is why we need to have examples. This appears to be a strawman as I can't think of any time I've ever seen a "free speech advocate" make demands that other people not be allowed to voice their disagreement with what they say. That would indeed be obviously logically inconsistent, which is probably why it doesn't really happen. It's usually more like "don't hit me over the head with a bike lock" or "don't pull fire alarms to stop others from speaking to people who want to hear them, in venues that have agreed to host them".

But you can drown them out with chanting, or a bullhorn. Unless of course they get a bigger bullhorn, or can invoke "my free speech is more free than yours so I can call the cops and you can't." And that latter part is the problem with the concept, because in reality there is no parity in free speech; never has been, and never will be.

The big uproar about free speech at the moment comes not from people who are really having their rights grossly trampled, but from people who are feeling a pinch because their status as most favored has become a little less clear. "In the good old days I could just call a _____ a _____, now just suggesting they are a lesser species has consequences. How did we let things get so unfair?" might engender some sympathy, but not from me.

 

[timtofly]

Is air free?

Free speech is free, but most speech now comes with a high cost.

The issue is not with speech or even freely saying what you like. The current batch of liberals get too offended. While claiming they are right, it just ends up as forcing their rights onto those they disagree with. There are certainly beliefs that are wrong, and if left unchecked, quite costly.

If a government has to enforce rights, those rights do not come freely either. While some wrong ideas tend to flow just as freely as great ideas, we stifle the concept of freedom itself, if we think we can say what is or is not allowed.

All speech flows freely. We have to accept how much it is going to cost us in the long run. If something is free and right it will never offend those who are truly free and right themselves. I am not even talking about personal beliefs. The reason we are offended is not because we are called out, but because we know we are wrong.

 

[Yavid]

The thing most people don't understand is your rights stop where someone else's begins. So yes they do have a right to say whatever they want. We have the right to protest it. Even tell sponsors we will boycott them if they cont. supporting someone's speech we don't like. Free speech does not mean someone has to be there to hear it. You have a right to speak no where do you have the right to be heard.

 

[Ryika]

The thing most people don't understand is your rights stop where someone else's begins. So yes they do have a right to say whatever they want. We have the right to protest it. Even tell sponsors we will boycott them if they cont. supporting someone's speech we don't like. Free speech does not mean someone has to be there to hear it. You have a right to speak no where do you have the right to be heard.

Are you a bot in training? That random array of sentences made no sense at all as a connected post. No statement follows logically from the last one.

The first two sentences are literally contradictory.

The third one.. nobody argued against that.

The fourth one... yeah, nobody said you don't have the "right", people said you shouldn't do it.

Fifth sentence... yeah, you're free to not listen, but that's not what you're doing - you DO listen, and then you react by trying to get their sponsors to drop them. If you just ignored speech you don't like and let those who WANT to listen do what they want, there would be no problem here.

Last sentence... it's hilarious that you portray yourself as the "victim of speech". If a person has something to say, and an audience that wants to hear it, then that person clearly has a right to be heard by that audience. You don't have to listen, you can walk away and ignore it. But you don't. That's the problem.

 

[Commodore]

I don't understand why a person feels he or she can say or do whatever he or she wants, but a company or organization doesn't have any right to be concerned with its public image and how you're affecting that

Because we still live in a society in which we have to be employed by those companies and organizations to survive. So if a company gets to fire people for their opinions, that kills free speech because then you are essentially telling people to choose between their beliefs and survival.

Your employer, the public at large, universities (the list goes on and on) are not required to give you your free speech rights.

That depends on whether we are talking about a private or public university. Public universities actually are obligated to respect your Constitutional rights because they are considered part of the government.

Also I take issue with your wording. No one "gives" you your rights. Rights are something you are born with. All the Constitution does is acknowledge that concept.

 

[Yavid]

Also I take issue with your wording. No one "gives" you your rights. Rights are something you are born with. All the Constitution does is acknowledge that concept.

I disagree, although our rights are suppose to be granted to us by a common creator, they are in fact given to us by the government. We (America) have time and time again tramped on those rights, from Jim Crow to the Japanese interment. Each and everyone of those are an outrage and a dark time in American history because as MLK said When the rights of one of us is threatened, the rights of all of us are threatened.

Ryika: I apologize for sounding incoherent in my previous post. It was getting really late here and it appears I was having a bit of trouble expressing my thoughts on the subject.

 

[metalhead]

You do understand how a two party system works right? In a two party system, both parties are going to define their agendas in opposition to the other party, at least to some extent. Not only that, you seem to have a rather simplistic view of Trump's agenda. A lot of it was opposed by the conservative party as well.

Yes, I do. The only "rational" policy-based view you assigned to Trump voters in your post was opposition to "the left's" agenda. This in the same post where you said "the left" was lacking a meaningful agenda. It must mean something if there is rational opposition to it. As your post did not mention a rational, broad policy-based reason for voting for him, I was left to conclude from your post that opposing "the left" was the rational reason for voting for Trump.

If you wanted to say something else, you should have said it. I can only go by what you post.

 

[Hehehe]

Yes, I do. The only "rational" policy-based view you assigned to Trump voters in your post was opposition to "the left's" agenda. This in the same post where you said "the left" was lacking a meaningful agenda. It must mean something if there is rational opposition to it. As your post did not mention a rational, broad policy-based reason for voting for him, I was left to conclude from your post that opposing "the left" was the rational reason for voting for Trump.

If you wanted to say something else, you should have said it. I can only go by what you post.

Are you confusing yourself? I never said that the left lacks an agenda. They lack meaningful discussion of their agenda. It seems to me like the left is unwilling to debate the actual issues. I've never argued that they have no policy positions; my opinion is merely that (some of) their policy positions are counter-productive and removed from reality, which is why it must be so important to avoid discussing them. If you want to discuss the actual policies themselves, well, that's a discussion that belongs on the free marketplace of ideas, not here.

 

[Berzerker]

I disagree, although our rights are suppose to be granted to us by a common creator, they are in fact given to us by the government. We (America) have time and time again tramped on those rights, from Jim Crow to the Japanese interment. Each and everyone of those are an outrage and a dark time in American history because as MLK said When the rights of one of us is threatened, the rights of all of us are threatened.

if government gives us our rights then why did Jim Crow and the internment of Japanese Americans trample anyone's rights? Government decided they didn't have those rights.

 

[Yavid]

if government gives us our rights then why did Jim Crow and the internment of Japanese Americans trample anyone's rights? Government decided they didn't have those rights.

That's kind of my point, The government giveth and the government taketh away

 

[MaryKB]

Because we still live in a society in which we have to be employed by those companies and organizations to survive. So if a company gets to fire people for their opinions, that kills free speech because then you are essentially telling people to choose between their beliefs and survival.

I don't feel you have a "right" to guaranteed employment, that totally doesn't make sense to me. If you're working for me and you're damaging my company's image I have every right to disassociate myself from you.

I completely disagree with government giving you your rights, I feel you're looking more for "recognizing", because your rights are inalienable.