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.
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.
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.