Ryan Andrews reminds us what free speech is for.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Fr ... _A_Paradox
Free Speech: A Paradox
-
surreptitious57
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Free Speech: A Paradox
Now free speech makes absolutely zero distinction between what one person says and what another says
It matters not one jot how popular or unpopular something said may be. For all free speech is concerned
with is that everyone has total freedom to say what ever they want. They might suffer the consequences
but as a matter of principle have to accept responsibility for their words. However they should still have
the freedom to say them. With that understood there should be no restriction as such on what they want
to say. Other than any they impose upon them selves of their own free will. This should be where it is at
It matters not one jot how popular or unpopular something said may be. For all free speech is concerned
with is that everyone has total freedom to say what ever they want. They might suffer the consequences
but as a matter of principle have to accept responsibility for their words. However they should still have
the freedom to say them. With that understood there should be no restriction as such on what they want
to say. Other than any they impose upon them selves of their own free will. This should be where it is at
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2485
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Free Speech: A Paradox
I'm not sure where this article was going nor saying? (It was likely something relating to my own thread questioning the degree of censuring whole threads with no reason.) Whatever the case, I hold that free speech is an ideal for democracy and that if and where these are intended for the people and permitted by the people of such democracies, the people retain privilege to their words if and where they are also accountable to them where intending harm.
Corporations require keeping accounting records for their finances as they are granted such incorporation by the public as a privilege and the records help address concerns should something questionable about their practices arise. The same goes with speech or other acts within the domains of these spaces. As such, where public spaces are permitted, they have to accept limited privilege to censor without accountability and keep such speeches as records in the same fashion as their finances.
But I agree too on the relativity of morals. So should one opt to censure, they may have the power to do so, but they are then violating the public's power and I would not blame such a society to remove their privilege as an entity if they continue to arbitrarily feel free to destroy records.
Speech can be used abusively too. And I'm against this as well. But it can be curbed as we mature within such forums we associate with among one another.
Corporations require keeping accounting records for their finances as they are granted such incorporation by the public as a privilege and the records help address concerns should something questionable about their practices arise. The same goes with speech or other acts within the domains of these spaces. As such, where public spaces are permitted, they have to accept limited privilege to censor without accountability and keep such speeches as records in the same fashion as their finances.
But I agree too on the relativity of morals. So should one opt to censure, they may have the power to do so, but they are then violating the public's power and I would not blame such a society to remove their privilege as an entity if they continue to arbitrarily feel free to destroy records.
Speech can be used abusively too. And I'm against this as well. But it can be curbed as we mature within such forums we associate with among one another.