Some–and possibly many–people make a distinction between the principle of free speech and free speech itself. One then relativizes oneself with the idea that others may well consider one’s own speech just as detestable as one considers theirs, and that they would therein not necessarily be less correct than oneself. The freely spoken word that freedom of speech be a destestable principle is fine, then; there’s only a problem when that word is put into action–that is, when people go and directly harm that principle. This means, however, that the said relativization is really illogical in a regime which considers freedom of speech something sacred.
Freedom of speech cannot stand alone as an immutable principle of life. Freedom of anything can be insidiously used to oppress itself, as the freedom of speech has been in the West. The freedom to elect government officials is also used to oppress the freedom to elect those officials. It is only by the combination of the right freedoms and constraints that freedoms can no longer be taken away. That was the basic idea of the separation of governing powers. They just didn’t think about one tiny constraint that was required in order to maintain their freedoms - the constraint of documentation and freedom to challenge specific governing rationale.
James is right. We give free speech the concept of actions, but arrest people if they murder what we consider “innocents”… (assuming that most people killed who aren’t “innocent” aren’t “innocent”) But arresting murderers is a curtailing of free speech.
I believe the Principle of Freedom of Speech should be held as absolute and is to be used as a guide to optimize life. It is like the fixed lighthouse that is necessary to guide ships away from rocks and dangers.
However, it does not mean that we cannot come up with Laws and promote conventional self-governance to regulate Freedom of Speech where there are justifications, e.g. harm principle, truth, self-actualization, human dignity, liberty, etc.
Inevitably these laws must be subject to the Freedom of Speech at all times and changes as and when necessary as supported by valid justifications. There should be an efficient establishment to deal with this process.
Thus if there is an issue within society, the principle of freedom of speech will facilitate an organized continual questioning and analysis which would enable a rationalized conclusion for actions or further considerations.
Why? How is freedom of speech good?
Then it’s not absolute.
So you’re saying that no law should ever regulate the freedom to speak on law and justice?
So the principle of freedom of speech is ultimately a mere means to what really matters, which is logos–which is, among other things, only one highly specific kind of speech.
Strategic philosophy (game theory) and thus speech concerning it, should be not only totally free, but required learning.
Other types of speech should have distribution limits as per the philosophic strategies reveal.
The Principle of Freedom of Speech [FoS] once established must be made ‘absolute’, not immutable eternally.
Note I mean absolute as in absolute temperature, not Absolute as God.
Some of the justifications and pros for FoS are truth, self-actualization, basic human dignity, liberty, and others.
In the case of “truths”, if there is no Freedom of Speech when it is suppressed by some oppressive authoritarian elements, valid truths from a lone wolf [e.g. Copernicus] or group [philosophy of the enlightenment] could be hidden for ever.
The absolute status of the Principle of Freedom of Speech, leave open the slightest window for potential truths to unfold into the consciousness of the majority in time.
As mentioned above, I mean ‘absolute’ as in absolute temperature [conditioned within the Scientific Framework], not Absolute as God.
It is a relative-absolute [something that hold for a long time but not eternally immutable like commands from an absolutely-Absolute God.
Yes. Laws are time-based and at times they could be impulsively enacted, thus they should be subjected to change.
In contrast God’s words, command and Law are immutable for eternity.
It is a moral maxim and a duty for every human to adopt and practice within soundly justified restrictions.
As absolute what, then?
So then speech should only be free insofar as it furthers self-actualization, for example.
From others, yes. So?
You mean, as in at least bringing the horse to water?
That was never what I meant. I meant absolute as in absolute freedom. If freedom of speech is regulated, it is not absolute.
But what if speaking on law, and especially on justice, threatens one or more of the justifications you mentioned?
Sounds vague. Freedom of speech is something very concrete: the freedom to–literally or metaphorically–speak, which means without restrictions, including those imposed by threats. If one is allowed to speak freely only within certain restrictions, then one’s freedom of speech is not absolute. Your absolute should rather be one or more of the justifications and pros you listed.
That is a very perverted view.
In philosophy you should exercise some degree of the Principle of Charity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
and not seen it in a narrow, bias, constricted light or view.
In context what it was supposed to mean was one can speak freely in general, but when considered at its utmost limit contentiously, then, we bring in the consideration of self-actualization [note Maslow’s] which should be net-positive in all circumstances.
So? I am sure you have reasonable brain to think what’s is next in terms of the progress of humanity.
Nah!
Just imagine the consequences if Copernicus’s view was shut out then till now?
Philosophically, Absolute Freedom [theologically motivated] is not tenable in the first place.
Thus when we speak of absolute freedom philosophically, it refers to the qualified ‘absolute’ freedom I presented above.
Some sort of official establishment or process should be in place to deal with it.
If a justification is enacted as law, then any threat to it should be dealt by the legal means. Example the laws on racism is threatened.
If the public think the existing law of racism restricting Freedom of Speech is not fair or proper, they have the freedom of speech to complain and present their arguments rationally and not subjectively.
If there is no consensus to change for some reasons, then, with they can continue to complain with their rational argument till natural truths arbitrate in time.
Absolutely Absoluteness canNOT and will NOT exists in non-Absolute reality.
Philosophically, ‘absolute freedom’ is the highest possible level of freedom to speak but with sound and justified restrictions.
‘Philosophical absolute freedom of speech’ makes sense when contrasted and making a choice with ‘philosophical absolute totalitarianism against freedom of speech’.
This meant that a society will adopt the principle of absolute freedom of speech as one of its mainstay Maxim and way of life.
If a society do not adopt at least such an ‘absolute freedom of speech with justifications’, it will be like a ship navigating amongst a very rocky coast without a rudder and a lighthouse, and it will loose out on the positive justifications.
That statement of yours was a response to my question to you, “How is freedom of speech good?” So your answer is that its goodness derives from the things that justify it, of which you listed four. Of course, it need not be bad insofar as it does not further those things–I never said or implied such a thing. This does not mean one should be able to speak freely in general, either, though. So you have not rejected my conclusion.
You’re making unfounded assumptions–and not about my brain. Why is it reasonable to think that the progress of humanity is necessarily or even probably furthered by publication of “valid truths”? How many pre-Enlightenment philosophers can you name who taught that it was?
Of course, the answer to the first question depends on what you regard as the progress of humanity.
Which consequences in particular are you referring to?
I take it you mean it in the sense of “as free as can be”. Indeed, perhaps the greatest possible freedom cannot exist without certain regulations. Then again, perhaps the Charlie Hebdo massacre was equally necessary. Perhaps the freedom its victims believed they had was an illusion, was not really possible. Anyway, that’s not the question.
Again, I must conclude that freedom of speech for you derives its value from a highly specific kind of speech: rational speech. Discussions on justice, however, are ultimately about values. I know of exactly one rational value…
My point was that its justifications and pros are the actual values here, and not freedom of speech itself. Then again, perhaps freedom of speech yields the greatest overall value from those distinct values. The question however is how it does so.
Truth can be subjective and therefore damaging.
Self-actualization can be narcisstic and self-focused, lending itself to abusive power.
Liberty is also in the eyes of the beholder.
I think that for freedom of speech there has to be less focus on the “freedom” of speech and more discretion, more thinking insofar as cause and effect, consequences, in this day and age. We tend to make freedom of speech as being far more important than its damaging consequences.
It’s a very slippery slope, an abstract painting so to speak.
Look at where our perfect freedom of speech has lead to - simply because we “believe” that we have a perfect right to say anything that comes out of our mouths without seeing consequences ahead of time.
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tred”.
We’re an arrogant blind humanity at times.
Self-Responsibility, Self-Discretion of speech!!
Arcturus, Did you know that the “two cents” thing means, “I bet my life on it”? It was the cost of a bullet in WW2 and thus the total cost of ones life.
A simple google search shows this to be false.
Interesting… I think wikipedia may be wrong. Lot’s of statements came from war. I know I heard this statement came from war, but the Biblical reference is interesting. The Biblical reference suggests however a piety compared to the other person, it suggests that they are being conspicuous consumers of language rather than aptly frugal people… but that’s not how people psychologically use this phrase. My two cents is used as “take it for what it’s worth”.
It is very possible for the above if viewed narrowly.
The plus point is humans has an inherent truth ‘thermostat’ within.
The most contentious truth is the theistic claim ‘God exists’ and therefrom ‘the Earth is Flat,’ ‘Sun moves round the Earth’, and all sort of theological bullsh.ts [albeit they are psychological necessities].
However note how the inherent truth ‘thermostat’ check these and other truths via Science and rational philosophy.
What is needed is for humanity to continually refined the workings of this inherent truth ‘thermostat’ within and exploit greater truths leveraged on the Principle of Freedom of Speech.
Note the ‘Self-Actualization’ of Maslow and others. The direction of these for humanity is a continual improvement of net-positives all the way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
“Liberty” is an inherent default impulse of humans (with exceptions). Which human do not want to feel and experience ‘freedom.’ Whilst freedom can be very subjective and conditional in its form, there is an underlying objective element in terms of its fundamental principle .
Measured against what??
Shifting goal posts?
I understand perfection is an impossibility.
However my point is we OUGHT [is not ‘IS’] to adopt and strive for perfect or absolute Freedom of Speech as one of humanity’s main Vision despite knowing it is an impossibility.
Then we set practical objectives toward the Vision with provisions for restrictions.
The point is we must understand the variance/gap between perfection and the practical and thus continually review the gap for changes and improvements towards an impossible END, i.e. perfection.
In this chase for an impossibility what is possible and the real are the never-ending cycles of continual improvements. This is the essence humanity need to tap, not Perfect Freedom of Speech.
Without using perfection* [whilst an impossibility] humanity will not have fixed guides to improve towards and will forever chasing shifting-goal-posts in one’s life and going in circles.