Are you seriously suggesting that US is the only arbiter of which speech can be free? Perhaps Senator McCarthy would like to join the conversation at this point?
The reality is that you live in a country, which like all democracies, has to make judgments about freedom of speech: you also have laws against deceitful advertisers, you also have laws against con men. Anything otherwise would be a
Neither KW nor I think banning expression should be done lightly, but neither are we naive enough to think that it should be unlimited — that it is simply a recipe for the powerful being able to oppress the weak.
You confirm with this post what I have been suspecting all along: you do not read what you’re being told. Ever since the beginning I have been talking about compromise with reality and the imperfect nature of mankind where institutions go forward through civilized discourse. Which is the goal of democracy - figuring out life together. It’s not a given. We learn as a species. And we will hopefully keep doing so.
And if God starts to intervene, I’m definitely out. As Laplace said « I do not need that hypothesis ».
That is the thing. The US is the only country that still holds that there should be no arbiter of free speech. The only distinction is the factor of imminent danger since there is the intent to harm and not express yourself.
False advertising is banned: you stop people expressing a view because of the damage it can cause — and that damage is not restricted to violence, despite you originally claiming that this should be the only grounds for banning. Look, this really is not a contentious point and it is rather odd that you refuse to acknowledge it.
The point is: the US, like every major civilised country acknowledges that the state has to protect its citizens: the compromises it makes are always imperfect and the success of the compromises varies from country to country, but it is simply and demonstrably incorrect that freedom of speech is an absolute right.
BTW, I stand corrected about Trump: he merely wondered whether you could inject disinfectant…
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside…”
You are still not addressing the tiny tiny issue of how that worked out in Europe. Maybe there’s a reason why some freedoms should be limited in the far extremes of the spectrum.
The fact that the US does not something does not make it automatically a model. It also requires their presidents to be religious. It makes me roll my eyes. Doesn’t mean I’m right either.
I have done nothing but so (quoting Popper, history from various places, EU law) and you keep talking about how you’ve been educating yourself but all I see is that you have Brandenburg v. Ohio on repeat. If you reason in absolutes, don’t be offended when counter examples destroy the absolutes. You see, that’s the exact problem with them.
No, no, no: vaccines are merely a Deep State tool to brainwash you and allow Bill Gates to put microchips in your veins so they can control you! I think 5G masts come into it somewhere, activated if you wear a mask… Wake up Sheeple!
So read Brandenburg v. Ohio. It is a essence of hundreds of years of discourse. We could talk about singular philosophers and lawyers like Holmes, Mill, Milton, Locke, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, de Tocqueville, Lilburne or even Aristotle. But this is definitely not the forum for it. And I still prefer actually understanding them versus quoting them.
Oh, I’m so burned by that last sentence. It’s like I have never, ever seen the argument of authority used by a stranger on the Internet before. Usually, you prove you understand something by using it in addressing the points in the discussion, not by having to resort to the argument that you do.
Those laws have a purpose. Freedom of speech is also called freedom of expression. And there is a difference between expressing yourself and intentionally defaming someone else.
Still not correct. Trump was asking scientist on ultraviolet light and disinfectant which showed promising results against Covid-19. So he just thought about getting them into the body via injection. It may be not scientifically correct, but he never ment it as a serious way of treating Covid-19.
Again. Freedom of speech is freedom to express yourself through your speech. And that right is absolute. Intentionally causing imminent harm is not expressing yourself (unless you are a psychopath). You can say that Mr. XYZ is a thief. But if you said it publicly knowing it was not true to cause him harm, you caused harm and there is public concern … etc. you can be liable for it. I am not a defamation lawyer and it varies a lot in different countries. But there is a lot of checking before you can bring a defamation lawsuit. So it is more complex than just saying something about Mr. XYZ.
