Your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply here

[Hitro]

I guess we all know that sentence, after all it is also part of CFC's forum rules.

It is based in the idea that on private property the owner can technically dictate the rules. I guess on first thought most of us agree with that idea, as probably everyone would like to have some control over what's going on in his backyard.

But doesn't this also create a huge general problem if seen in connection with "laissez faire Capitalism", i.e. practically unlimited private property?

Consequently thought out everything can be bought as private property. Therefore it would be so that "your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply here" adds up to "your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply anywhere".

The same applies to most other rights, they are reduced to being something purely theoretical. As soon as you don't own any private property to express yourself on (or in), which is and always will be that case for many people, your right to free speech will factually be unexistent. It might only exist as a priviledge granted by your landlord or the owner of some public place, which is of course not the same as a "right".

Basically others could just buy away your rights, but aren't they supposed to be "inalienable"?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Ironically, Libertarians tend to be among the staunchest supporters of inalienable rights.

But in any faintly realistic state, there'll be plenty of public places, so I don't know if it would be much of a problem in practice.

 

[Hitro]

Ironically, Libertarians tend to be among the staunchest supporters of inalienable rights.

But in any faintly realistic state, there'll be plenty of public places, so I don't know if it would be much of a problem in practice.

In any faintly realistic state.

Not that I disagree (just read the Libertarianism thread), which is exactly the point...

 

[Akka]

That's one of the paradoxes, when the application of a principle destroy the very principle itself, showing a big flaw in the theory

 

[thestonesfan]

You can find someone who agrees with you.

 

[thestonesfan]

That's one of the paradoxes, when the application of a principle destroy the very principle itself, showing a big flaw in the theory

I thought the principle to the right of free speech is that you can't be thrown in jail for what you say?

 

[Hitro]

You can find someone who agrees with you.

Somehow I think that is not the point of free speech...

 

[Duddha]

What bothers me the most is the idea of "Free Speech Zones" near contentious events, as if free speech does not apply everywhere else also.

 

[Akka]

I thought the principle to the right of free speech is that you can't be thrown in jail for what you say?

Who said I was talking about the flaw in the "free speech" theory ?

 

[bobgote]

What bothers me the most is the idea of "Free Speech Zones" near contentious events, as if free speech does not apply everywhere else also.

Sounds unconstitutional to me.

 

[Padma]

No more unconstitutional than not allowing people to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater....

 

[PHSikes]

Sounds unconstitutional to me.

I believe that the point of the 'zone' is just to keep possible antagonists apart. Kind of like a lively debate, with a fence...

 

[Immortal]

you voluntarily yielded your rights to express yourself like an idiot when you agreed to the terms of service.

Voluntarily yielding freedom of speech in a webforum is a little different from most RL examples.

 

[MrPresident]

No more unconstitutional than not allowing people to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater....

As usual you have forgotten the crucial word in the example. You're not allowed to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. A very important difference.

 

[Dell19]

Can you falsely swear?

 

[MarineCorps]

Can you falsely swear?

No I don't think so

 

[Hundegesicht]

"Damn you, God!" might apply. Moderator Action: warned, profanity
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[samildanach]

Consequently thought out everything can be bought as private property. Therefore it would be so that "your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply here" adds up to "your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply anywhere".

The same applies to most other rights, they are reduced to being something purely theoretical. As soon as you don't own any private property to express yourself on (or in), which is and always will be that case for many people, your right to free speech will factually be unexistent. It might only exist as a priviledge granted by your landlord or the owner of some public place, which is of course not the same as a "right".

Nice point Hitro. I am as you may know quite right wing but this is something I don't approve of. This is in my view is a sop thrown to property owners by the right wing. An illusory power to control free speech in order to win votes.
Insulating yourself from words that you may find threatening is not the same as taking action to eliminate a threat. For example trying to curtail a communists right to free speech in our societies isn't going to do anything to minimise the threat he poses. He will just become more circumspect in the way he goes about trying to sow dissent. Far better in my view is to allow them to exercise their right to the full and hopefully abuse that right. The threat can then be dealt with. Not allowing the threat to manifest itself quickly by suppressing free speech in this case by using property owners as a proxy, forces the threat to evolve and become smarter.
Suppressing Free Speech is akin to treating a cancer with an attenuated regime of chemotherapy. The cancer is still there, slowed down perhaps, but evolving around the pressure applied by the drugs and around the bodies defence systems.
The whole strategic thinking behind the policy of undermining free speech is one of cowardice. Government policy makers find it easier to attack this right more than any other as people say dumb things all the time such as shouting "fire" in theatres. But will stick there heads in the sand as to regards to underlying problems - if we can stop people talking about it or spin it, it isn't a problem.

 

[Steph]

For me the most important is not only what you say, but how you say it.
Some subjects are just "wrong". But for others, I don't mind people saying the opposite of what I think, even in my "private space", as long as they do it calmly, with the will to exchange and discuss, and not simply to bash or impose their view.
As Voltaire said "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to let you say it". This is freedom of speech.

 

[IglooDame]

What bothers me the most is the idea of "Free Speech Zones" near contentious events, as if free speech does not apply everywhere else also.

I concur. However, the desire of some people to not only express their opinion, but to do so in a way which will most effectively disrupt the events themselves (and thus get their opinion displayed as a story on the evening news), can't be discounted.