please don't boost: free speech thoughts
why do people confuse free speech with "the ability to say what you think anywhere you go"?
free speech is protection from your government, limited to words that do not incite harm
free speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say between you and another private party
if someone dislikes what you have to say and thinks you're an ass for saying it the way you did, you have no right to complain about being blocked
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
this isn't even a new thought! my thoughts here are entirely unoriginal. i don't get why these folks think that it's ok to run around shoving their opinions down peoples' throats, or that sending people hurtful messages is something that deserves to be protected
all it boils down to "i have a right to be an asshole without consequences" and i'm so fuckin' tired of it
free speech thoughts
@vahnj It depends on your world view. if you think that pathos misleads and that the exchange of ideas is the way to progress society, then you'd see that as a higher purpose. It is easy to dismiss personal appeals as unimportant in that mindset if held genuinely. I struggle with that thought pattern occasionally. I think free speech is incredibly valuable, even if I don't agree with what people are saying. I think middle ground is possible though.
free speech thoughts
@vahnj But, it's hard to argue for like... debate decorum without coming off as an elitist :) So... I'm open to suggestions!
free speech thoughts
@Irick free speech is a useful tool to give power to individuals in the context of a government
if individuals use that to harm or abuse others, then that speech should not be free. for example, under US law, hate speech- IE, speech that derides protected classes- is not protected
it's not hard to have the free exchange of ideas, and not be an asshole
free speech thoughts
@vahnj for me, it's not about government or law. free speech is a fundimental value, like a virtue. it's not going to be persuasive to say "the law says xyz" because, to quote John Stewart Mill's On Liberty, Chapter II: "If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."
free speech thoughts
@Irick you're still ignoring the point of my post
nobody has to listen to what someone has to say
saying that free speech is "the exchange of information" and has to be respected means that you think everyone's opinion universally has to be considered, which isn't true.
