Free Speech
The term ‘free speech’ is used so casually as to be of little value except to fashionable bigotry.
If it is related to the elemental forms of society then some logic may be possible, defining each against the others.
Absolute free speech would include being able to slander, lie, and talk tendentious nonsense. This is a good definition of Chaos, or lack of any social cohesion.
Where speech and publication generally is controlled for the benefit of the central state and authority, against or over the people, we have tyranny or at least Authoritarianism. [Much as in China and Russia today]
Where speech is controlled for the benefit of autonomous individuals, Anarchism as a convenient name for it, then anything that criticises the individual may be outlawed, or socially constrained.
Where speech and publication is controlled for the benefit of corporate society, individuals and communities, only outright fabrication and lies would be constrained. Not believing what a person says being an essential freedom, if reason can be adduced. The Altruist society.
We do however live in a chaotic world, and therefore this country relates to others on this basis, whereas internally it may try to be altruistic. Altruism does not imply telling the absolute truth on all occasions – making government nigh impossible.
Free Speech and the Society
-
- Posts: 4332
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Free Speech and the Society
try saying anything right of center on twitter
-Imp
-Imp
-
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Free Speech and the Society
Personally, I think free speech should be an absolute. It does say that congress shall make "no law." However what I think it says is actually conflicting. It also says that there should be freedom of the press, which suggests that speech and press are seen as types of communication. After all, it doesn't say freedom of lyricism. To me that means congress could write a law against entertainment like opinion shows. This might cut down on some of the violence it sometimes seems to drudge up.
Re: Free Speech and the Society
Even if one uses speech to call upon the mass-murder of their political opposition?
-
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Free Speech and the Society
What if preventing that also prevents organizing a just revolution?
That's really the only thing I can say against it. it seems for a strange to think that I hadn't thought of something like that when I made the statement. Perhaps Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, knew better when they formed a non-absolute statement.
That's really the only thing I can say against it. it seems for a strange to think that I hadn't thought of something like that when I made the statement. Perhaps Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, knew better when they formed a non-absolute statement.
Re: Free Speech and the Society
RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:18 am Free Speech
The term ‘free speech’ is used so casually as to be of little value except to fashionable bigotry.
If it is related to the elemental forms of society then some logic may be possible, defining each against the others.
Absolute free speech would include being able to slander, lie, and talk tendentious nonsense. This is a good definition of Chaos, or lack of any social cohesion.
Where speech and publication generally is controlled for the benefit of the central state and authority, against or over the people, we have tyranny or at least Authoritarianism. [Much as in China and Russia today]
Where speech is controlled for the benefit of autonomous individuals, Anarchism as a convenient name for it, then anything that criticises the individual may be outlawed, or socially constrained.
Where speech and publication is controlled for the benefit of corporate society, individuals and communities, only outright fabrication and lies would be constrained. Not believing what a person says being an essential freedom, if reason can be adduced. The Altruist society.
We do however live in a chaotic world, and therefore this country relates to others on this basis, whereas internally it may try to be altruistic. Altruism does not imply telling the absolute truth on all occasions – making government nigh impossible.
well here's the agreement of the US of A on that:
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.
basically its illegal for gov of US to edit what some one says or writes.
doesn't say the press doesn't have the right to edit or abridge to change a meaning or sense of a statement.
press isn't government in the US, but its a corporation run by those invested in certain agendas for profit and power and influence.
but there are work arounds, for example on religion, after Martin Luther King used the Christian churches to set the world on notice for minority rights the Gov created a new tax law were a church would receive substantial increase in tax returns if it file under this new law which basically states that politic and the like could not be preached from the pulpit. so if a church files accordingly willingly mind you the church agrees to not preach on politics and politicians from the pulpit. no breach of the constitution perceived there. but it was breached because they are not allowed to make a law to do so, and irs regs are law.