Say it were implemented in this world and you could say anything you like (written, spoken, signed whatever) to anyone who can hear/read/see it. What kind of problems could that create and are there any ways to resolve them without limiting that absolute free speech?
Could it even create unsolvable logical errors? E.g an omnipotent god can’t create a stone too heavy for itself to lift. Maybe there are similar things with absolute free speech.
Lots of lies, hate, propaganda. You couldn’t trust anything or anyone. Because everyone would just claim arbitrary counterfactual things. Also lots of spam, doxxing would be legal. Privacy would be eliminated since everyone can spill any beans. I think life would turn into a big shouting match.
Intermediary stages are something like the lot of failed “free speech” platforms online. Or 4chan. Attracts nazis, edgy people, people with behavioral issues and everyone talks like a 12 year old, yells at each other and they use the N-word a lot since that get’s them off. Though that’d become unattractive once it’s allowed, the thrill is that it’s disallowed. Also spamming, saying stupid things and offending people is quite popular.
And Hollywood and any book author would go bankrupt immediately. Copyright is just a restriction on free speech.
I guess you could argue Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance would be an unsolvable logical error that would result.
But also I would argue that anyone who is calling anyone else a free speech absolutist is misunderstanding what that other person stands for.
What about people who call themselves free speech absolutists?
I doubt that most of them have the same interpretation of absolutists in this context that you do.
I get called a free speech absolutist because I believe that you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist, I would not.
Out of curiosity, do you consider the sentence below to be a direct incitement to actionable violence?
“It would be patriotic if someone were to stop Person X from enacting their agenda, even if they used force.”
If yes, what exactly qualifies it as a “direct incitement”?
Additionally, would you say it makes a difference whether the sentence above is said by Joe Shmoe vs televised and said by a powerful person with many followers hanging at their every word?
Depends who says it. If Joe shmoe says it on Lemmy then id say its fine. If someone said it televised (and where knowledgeable of it being televised, if they are not then its the person televising it who is making it actionable and thus their fault) then it’s actionable and thus u can’t say it.
I’d say the sentence is a direct incitement of violence. But its not always actionable.
How is free speech in your definition “absolute”?
I would probably define absolute free speech the same way you did. I’ve given you my definition of free speech. And some people call my definition absolute.
This is the one I’m using from the dictionary
free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute freedom.
From your sentence
[…] you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist
I think it’s clear that by definition they are incorrect.
However, I’d go further back to another thing you said
But also I would argue that anyone who is calling anyone else a free speech absolutist is misunderstanding what that other person stands for.
I disagree there. It’s some. “Anyone” is without exception.
Yeah I’d agree. I guess anyone just sounds more assertive than some. Perhaps I should have said most.
The idea of free-speech-absolutism relies on a top-down model which only examines how a government or platform should regulate speech, while completely ignoring how free a space is depends as much on who participates as who controls.
Free speech is also dependent on the twin stupidities that a “market places of ideas” will produce good ideas, or that debate could possibly settle the most trivial issue.
Removed by mod
misdirection, lying, etc. yelling fire in a crowded theater.
You can see it in controlled media speech already. Propaganda can say whatever the hell it wants without any repercussions whatsoever until it pisses off the wrong corporation/government.
It’s like that, but for everyone.
Free speech and freedom of opinion, in my understanding, are two very different things.
The “free speech” touted by the usual actors is the thing that, if truly implemented, would get most people punched in the mouth. People tend to confuse the possibility of saying anything they want and not being censored for their words/ideas with the notion of speaking without concern and not receiving any sort of consequences.
So, to the extent of my comprehension, free speech would lead to violence.
Freedom of opinion, again, as I understand it, is the recognized right to differ from the socially recognized and established view on any subject but understanding that, regardless your freedom to diverge from it, you are responsible for your words.
Doesn’t “total free speech” boils down to “the right to lie”?
Are you obliged to tell the truth (or be sanctioned in some way) or can you just lie?
Any law that prevents me from counterfeiting money is an intolerable encroachment on my right to free speech
Free speech really is the trapdoor to a slippery slope.
Well if it’s really absolute then you could legally point a knife at someone and say “give me your money” . You haven’t caused physical harm at that point and you’re only exercising your freedom of speech.
You could say OK, that’s not allowed because you’re mugging somebody and that’s a threat of violence. But in that case you’ve carved out an exception for threats of violence and therefore calling for violence against a person or group also becomes not allowed.
What about exceptions for fraud? What about for verbal abuse or harrassment?
And if you’re going to have exceptions, then how do you deal with obfuscated language and insinuation? “Would be a real shame if something bad were to happen to your family” - is that allowed? A nice friendly, supportive comment like that? If you can’t say that you can’t say anything.
Or that’s usually how it goes with people defending hate speech or veiled threats of racial violence.
As someone once said on TV Tropes, “flat earthing is all fun and games until one of them tries to build bridges”.
A philosopher has told a rule that goes like this:
You are free to say and do whatever you want, unless it would hurt your fellow humans.
I find ur existence is harmful to my mental state. Therefore u existing is in violation of this rule.
I like the idea but it had flaws
You are right, it needs some kind of common understanding about what is hurtful. Or a way of resolving such conflicts.
I think the lack of such a common understanding is very new (we live in an overly individualistic time) and didn’t exist at that time when he said that.
I’d argue that there is no way you could ever come to a common understanding of what is hurtful.
It’s not that we’re more individualistic than we used to be, it’s just that we’re now exposed to the entire global consciousness.
there is no way you could ever come to a common understanding
For thousands of years (and until maybe the first two thirds of my short life) this common understanding was there and no need to think about it, let alone discuss it. Now there are people boldly denying it. I call that ridiculous.
Things like death threats being legal would be pretty awful. Husband saying “if you leave me I’ll murder you”? Oh well, he’s just exercising his free speech, so it’s not an issue.
People could defame others, openly call for genocide, plan terrorist attacks etc without consequences. It would be a pretty awful society to live in.
It’s free speech but still a threat maybe?
Arresting somebody for making a threat would be impeding their free speech, would it not?
That’s not how free speech works.
Ok, how does it work?
Free speech is about protecting opinions and beliefs. A threat is not an opinion.
Does everything have to be prefixed with “I believe” then? That’s an easy fix.
It is how absolute free speech works.
free speach can plan terrorist attacks
Wat!
murder and manslaughter don’t just stop existing… let alone terrorism laws and conspiracy to commit crime just because you can say naughty words
The point is that the planning itself wouldn’t be illegal if there were absolute free speech. Of course the murder still would be, but ideally you’d want to stop that before it happens, which will be tougher when just talking about murdering people is perfectly legal. Free speech isn’t just about “naughty words”.
Ah the thought crime advocate.
Its a thin line to walk, my points dont change, planning and intent is significantly more, its crafting devices, buying weapons, its records, its money, its so much more than naughty words & opinion.
If free speech is understood as: government cannot stop you from saying things, it can become toxic, awful, but no real problems would arise
Imagine someone wants to defend their rights in court against a company that wronged them.
But the company has the resources to publish AI-generated child porn featuring that person everywhere.
And that would be legal.
