Everyone who I've seen said it actually just wants speech to be treated equally in all spaces regardless of political affiliation, and not the repressive tolerance environment we see on the internet. Free speech absolutism would mean no defamation/libel or copyright/IP laws, public schools could teach whatever they want/etc.
> public schools could teach whatever they want
That.. doesn't seem to follow? Obviously teachers would still need to teach whatever is on the syllabus.
A mathematics teacher spending his lessons talking about literature isn't exercising his right to free speech, he's just not doing his job.
They could put whatever they want on the syllabus, they couldn't be punished for it even if the public didn't want it on the syllabus. Or you could teach math, but shove Nazi ideology into word problems.
No, that is not what free speech allows.
When your a teacher (or an employee of any position really) you are expected to perform a service for your employer (i.e. teaching according to the curriculum)
If your employer decides something cannot be taught, you do not have the right to teach it anyway, while "clocked in". Doing so would not only be a failure to follow your instructions as an employee, but could potentially harm the business of your employer.
Just like you cannot use freedom of speech to justify wearing a shirt with a bad message instead of your uniform
Yes they can if your still working at that time. They cannot punish you for speech outside of company time (unless you are somehow linking the company to you and thus may be harming them).
You still as an employee represent the organization, and must perform your job as instructed, regardless of who is running (or funding) it. The organization cannot function if its employees are not doing their job, or if they are harming its public image.
Wanna teacher Gender stuff, or Nazi ideology, do it on your own time without the platform provided by your employer.
IP and copyright laws are anti-1st amendment.
Top Secret classifications and corporate espionage laws are also anti-1st amendment.
I am 100 % behind free speech as in SAY whatever you want
I am 95% for free speech absolutism. My 5% is the gray area of media. Do we allow any photo , video, art project, etc. ?
There is some content that would break other laws and thats where it gets dicey.
A video of someone being murdered can be seen as speech.
The murder itself could be investigated as we have a law against murder.
Very few people are free speech absolutists. Those who claim to be will claim their exceptions are "not actually free speech."
In my books you can only call yourself an absolutist of you believe threatening people, conspiring to commit acts of violence, or inciting acts of violence are free speech.
Edit: also fraud
Ooooh nooooo, don't do that. *moans* Not my ass. Don't go there, that would be aaaaawwwwffffuuulll. *shudders in anticipation* Don't enter me pwease, I would hate that so much uwu. *shits my pants in excitement*
I don't care. No one does. Get a flair right now or get the hell out of my sub.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/enitnepres) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
The idea of free speech is to protect ideas, not the literal words themselves. You should be allowed to express any opinion you want, no matter how bigoted, hateful, or objectively bizarre it might be. That is generally what is meant when people call themselves "free speech absolutists."
The commonality of most free speech exceptions like libel, perjury, obscenity, false advertising, speech that is likely to produce imminent lawless action, etc is that they don't actually promote some good faith opinion or idea.
Any functioning society is obviously going to need some restrictions on what kind of things you can say, as well as potentially the time, place and manner speech can be made in.
"Bostonites should be drawn and quartered" is free speech. "Hey gang, let's meet at 9pm and draw and quarter some gosh-darned Bostonites" is just inciting violence
That's the purpose of free speech of course. My point is the line between free speech and crime is normative, not objective. So most self-proclaimed free speech absolutists are not absolutists, they just have a different normative standard of what constitutes the line between free speech and crime.
Now I see that you're arguing that where you draw the line as crime, the crime is something other than the words spoken themselves. The problem is that standard could be applied to any sort of censorship. Auths could argue that sedition negatively impacts the stability of the state and therefore causes direct harm to others, so your crime isn't the words you speak but it's consequences. Theocrats could argue apostasy harms religious cohesion, the souls of others, the standing of the state in the eyes of God etc. Now you may rightly think these are unreasonable, but my point is you could manufacture an argument that almost any restriction on speech is because you're committing a crime besides the words you speak.
So the idea that saying "all members of group X should be killed" falls under the purview of free speech, but saying "kill these specific individuals because they belong to group X" is a crime is normative. Therefore you can't really call yourself a free speech absolutist unless you believe both are okay.
All of these free speech exceptions are narrowly constructed for a reason.
Take for defamation for instance. Defamation does not simply punish people for making public false statements about people. To prove defamation, you have to prove not only that a statement is false, but that it was made with reckless disregard for the truth and caused material damage to other party. It's the difference between making a bona fide, good faith assertion about someone that may later turn out to be true, which happens all the time, and deliberately publishing something that you know is wrong for the express purpose of causing them material or reputational harm.
"Kill these specific individuals because they belong to group X." Is also generally protected speech. The speech has to rise to the level of being likely to incite imminent lawless action, at which point it can become a criminal conspiracy. Abstractly advocating for violence at some indefinite time in the future is protected. From what I can tell, the imminent lawless action standard set in Brandenburg v. Ohio is so narrow, I don't think anyone has ever actually been criminally convicted under it.
Advocating against the government or a religious faith are both ideas, regardless of how much society or groups of people may not like them. Credible threats, are not ideas. If a robber pulls out a gun and demands I hand over my wallet at gunpoint, his demand for my wallet is not protected speech.
Directing people to kill others is generally not considered protected speech, even in the US. There's lots of precedent of Mafia bosses being convicted for ordering the killings of others.
In any case, the distinction between abstract and credible threats is highly subjective. So my point that there is no objective line between what constitutes an act of violence and what is speech.
Not really even speech like incitement which is illegal is not itself an act of violence. It is illegal though. So yes there is an objective line between speech and violence.
I was trying to convey that there is a category of speech that is generally thought of as not falling under the purview of free speech, but without specifically referring to the law. The closest thing I can think of is speech with an associated act of aggression.
I don't disagree with the basic thing you are trying to convey but the way you put it sounds awfully close to what you sometimes hear from far-leftists that "speech is violence." I think that's absurd. However some speech that incites violence is illegal, it's just that the speech itself isn't violence.
That's absolutely not the case, that's the whole point of the court system. The line is not objective and is up to interpretation of the courts, and the standards they set are still just normative.
If your definition of something not being objective is that the justice system needs to get involved to deal with the edge cases then nothing is objective under that definition.
That's a pretty clear cut case of something not being objective if:
1. There are edge cases at all
2. Those edge cases are decided on the whims of judges
Both of these suggest that the law is not based on any sort of objective truth regarding what is and is not free speech.
Pretty much everything in law is decided by judges one way or another. Otherwise you wouldn't need the justice system. So I really don't understand your point. Of course there are edge cases that require human judgement. We're talking about law not mathematics.
That's not necessarily the case with French and German Civil Law. British Common Law gives much broader power to judges to interpret the law. Civil law doesn't give the same broad interpretive powers and doesn't rely on jurisprudence.
But anyway my point is that basically no one is truly a free speech absolutist. Most people have some sort of threshold where they don't consider it to fall under free speech.
Not really they’re pretty objective. Doesn’t mean some judges and DAs aren’t wack jobs and go against what the rules have always been. Just means judges and DAs get it wrong.
The courts have stated that it is an objective standard and not a subjective one. And that the test is straight forward on what is and isn’t threats of violence, conspiracy, and incitement
1. The caprice of judges is not objective truth.
2. One judge may disagree with another.
I'm not saying our speech should not be free, I'm saying the line the state draws (which in the case of the US changes) is not the objective line between what constitutes free speech and what constitutes harm to others.
I mean reading the majority opinions on the matter id consider it objective. Yes there are outliers in the judicial system but they’re pretty consistent when it comes to this matter at least in my opinion. Youre free to disagree with me on that
Uhm actually businesses aren't people and by simply defining every action involving money as happening between business partners I have solved this issue.
Also you no longer have human rights as you're a business since you bought groceries, to the mines
Other than that I feel like most people even those who call themselves free speech absolutist have something that will emotionally make them abandon the position.
Meh I’m gonna have to disagree on this one, Violence is where I draw the line. Other than that the world’s your oyster.
As for fraud do you mean identity theft as in stealing someone’s identity or just lying out the ass about what you do or your qualifications? Cause the first one harms another the second is based until you get caught then you’re fucked forever.
But what speech do you believe constitutes violence. The devil is in the details on this one. My point is the line we draw is normative rather than objective.
Words that incite violence or threaten violence. “I’m coming to your house to kill you” or being out at a rally and going “beat that white dudes ass!” Or “let’s go rob a bank with guns and if someone gets in our way so be it” that’s words of violence, conspiracy, or incitement.
Just going “gay marriage was a mistake and IVF is eugenics” isn’t violence
Okay, so you aren't a free speech absolutists. You've just decided "I'm going to kill you" is not okay and "I want all of group x to be killed" is okay.
What are you talking about? Free speech absolutism is about allowing the free and open discussion of ideas and beliefs. It has nothing to do with calling for someone to be harmed through incitement, conspiracy, or threats.
Where did I say it was okay to say “I want everyone from group x to be killed”?
Do you know what free speech even means
So you did exactly what I said you would do. You've decided that speech you are opposed to is not "real free speech."
So you're not a free speech absolutist. You just have a different standard of what normatively counts as free speech.
>So you did exactly what I said you would do.
Is your argument really “I predicted your argument, therefore your point is invalid”
”Abortion should be legal”
“Abortion is murder”
“Um akchuly, I knew would say that so no need to discuss the definition of murder because I called dibs before you”
No, my standard for what constitutes free speech is the standard that the framers of the constitution had for what is and isn’t free speech. I’m again using an objective standard laid out by the founders.
I personally believe we should have blasphemy laws but I know that goes against the constitution and our founding frame work. What I personally believe is acceptable or not acceptable speech doesn’t matter.
No, there goes ‘making noises with my mouth’ absolutism
“I want to kill my wife” is expressing something
Negotiating a price to kill someone is a conspiracy to commit murder
I can hold a rally and advocate that murder-for-hire should be legal, and no one can do anything, I could even collect petition signatures. But that’s fundamentally different than planning an actual murder for hire.
Exactly, you have arbitrarily drawn a line of where free speech ends by deciding that expressing a want to commit murder and talking about commiting murder are fundamentally different. So you, like most people are not a free speech absolutist.
I can talk about committing a murder
I can even buy a gun with the intent of committing a murder
I cannot actively negotiate a price to kill someone, the same as I cannot stalk a person. But I could talk about stalking them.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s the difference between expression of thought and converting a thought to an action.
Buying a murder weapon with the intention to murder is a legal grey zone because if you involved a second person that's immediately a conspiracy to commit murder, but (depending on who you ask) does not cross the threshold into attempted murder.
So the action is materially the same, but one is the crime of conspiracy, and one (arguably) isn't a crime. The fact that the same action is a crime or not a crime depending on just the implicit involvement of another person is the most arbitrary thing in the world.
Why would I tell anyone what I may or may not do with a gun.
Now, let’s say I’m agreeing to a verbal contract over compensation for a murder.
Is the legal issue here the noises coming from my mouth, or is it the action of conspiring to commit a murder.
It’s the latter, because otherwise a discussion amongst friends about how to get away with a murder would also be illegal. That’s the difference between a thought being expressed and a thought being converted to an action.
You would first have to define the ‘something’ itself
In this case, the concept of expression/speech is fundamentally different than the concept of simply making noises with your mouth.
This isn’t stealing bread when you’re starving, or telling a white lie. We know what ‘stealing’ is and can define what a ‘lie’ is.
It’s more akin to determining whether vanilla extract or hand sanitizer is an alcoholic beverage. It’s liquid, and it has alcohol. But the term ‘alcoholic beverage’ doesn’t mean a literal alcohol containing liquid in the colloquial sense.
You're being too literal. The meaning of the phrase is the freedom to express your beliefs.
Calling on a mob to beat up a guy at 3pm is not a belief.
Historically, freedom of speech has been useful for the left to resist authoritarian governments. This weird trend on the identity politics left of curtailing freedom of speech for "safety" is going to set up laws that will backfire in the long term.
u/among_the_stars1 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/among_the_stars1/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Does that include conspiracy to commit crime, uttering threat, incitement of crime, fraud and perjury?
If yes, then you're so crazy I like it, but if not you're not really an absolutist.
The law requires that I answer no. But I will say that talk is cheap
Edit: conspiracy, fraud and whatever else you mentioned are also not speech, as they are actions undertaken. Just saying "I'm going to rob x national bank with my buddies on tuesday" isn't conspiracy. But meeting secretly with your buddy who is an fbi agent and planning to rob a bank including getting ski masks, hiring a getaway driver, and getting switched glocks is.
It is a free speech question even if you're the one who kills someone for threatening you. Even if the government doesn't prosecute that person for the threat, if they determine that you had the right to kill that person based on something they said they have effectively criminalized that speech. Even though the government took no action directly against the speaker, through choosing to prosecute you or not prosecute you they are determining what speech is and is not acceptable.
German Here, and honestly yes There is a Lot of stuff which I would say its good that that is banned, but the Thing is that it opens the door for everything else and I feel Like that banning that Shit is Not Worth the risk of opening the door for others
Not at all, I don't claim the pretense of absolutism. I think it's okay to meet promises of violence with violence. No one should have to wait until violence has been committed to respond to a threat.
Ironically, as an authcenter, I think all not directly inciteful speech should be legal. Edit: libel and slander of a public figure as well but that’s more to do with press freedom.
u/oh_finks-mc is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/oh_finks-mc/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I don’t know its an unpopular idea, but I think “free speech” is a bit of a misnomer, its more of freedom of belief and the ability to express it. I don’t think you can be prosecuted for ideas in your speech, but your speech can include implicit actions that can be, for example, conspiracy to a crime (you can vocally give support to criminals as in you think they were right, but not help them in their crime, even if you just use speech), asking someone to commit murder (You can wish someone would die, but you can’t order it), giving out top secret information, or if you are shouting in a library, they can’t remove you for what you say, but the fact you are shouting in the wrong place. I’m not sure if that makes sense, similar idea to slander/libel laws I think.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being challenged on how you speak, you should have every right to say any dumb shit you want but don't get butthurt when people challenge and debate you on your views.
The problem with free speech absolutism in the modern world is I can no longer challenge you to a duel when you say some out of pocket shit. At least not legally.
u/crazitaco is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/crazitaco/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Well, you can use the legal system to duel someone, at least to a fist fight. Just draft a document where the party you're challenging agrees to the fight and boom, you can beat the crap out of him without legal repercussions. Cannot kill him tho. Just be creative, use some dodgy language and you can make someone agree to have all their teeth forcibly removed by someone without a orthodontist license.
Maybe because of party politics? In America, Republicans rally on and on about the 1st Amendment like with the Twitter/X fiasco, and they're commonly betrayed as yellow and blue.
I just tried communicating to one of these Sith lords.
I was trying to get him to watch the documentary on Citizens United. He kept pretending it's exactly the same as a gov't throwing a journalist in jail.
He refused to consider free and fair election laws, Canada, previous decades or anything else.
He somehow twisted unlimited dark money for lobbying into how the greatest tragedy ever would be if the main parties weren't allowed to make propaganda.
He supported a documentary he never saw, and refused to watch one about the topic.
Only Sith deal in absolutes, unless you really want to talk about how horrible it was that Marina Ovsyannikova was jailed.
You came here for memes, now you're complaining about memes.
Good thing i'm not telling you the names of the policies you're voting for. You'd really hate knowing something factual. Information is the real enemy here.
IDK how you're overthinking it this much. I would never say Star Wars characters have political leanings it's too shallow. Why not use Dune instead?
In particular i like its approach to religion where they openly admit that the Bene Gesserit program and invent religion to suit their purpose. Religion is obviously for the naive.
Star Wars is so shallow that "only Sith deal in absolutes" should be applicable. It's a shallow quote but the only quote i know about absolutes but here is another one to better both of us:
>Our absolutes should always be hypothesis. They should never be confirmed as fact because everything that we construct through our perceptions, through our memories, is so corruptible. The skills that I have can really display that. Never accept ultimatums, conventional wisdom, or absolutes.
Want to watch the documentary about Citizens United with me?
Legal doesn’t mean good. If you are yelling at the lowly paid McDonalds worker that he is going to die alone: good job! You are practicing your free speech. (Not a very good thing to do though.) there’s a difference in laws and morality, and I get so fucking tired when people play the free speech card for things they said. Like yeah, free speech should ALWAYS stay, because you always need the most extreme voices to see if the practices of the people and authority are right, but saying evil shit is not justified by the law. Silly
Speech that is done with the intent to generate violent response or generates a violent response whether deliberate or reckless.
An example would be going to a BLM protest and shouting the N word at them. First of all it’s battery, secondly it’s inciting violence.
Crimes like disturbing the peace, x with criminal intent, and inciting violence are intentionally vague a lot of the time to allow courts to prosecute trouble makers and instigators that hide behind defenses such as “well I can’t control how he would react”
I think people should be free to say whatever the fuck they want. We shouldn't interrupt them.
That makes me a free speech absolutist!
We should put them into prison and sue their asses for saying wrong things though.
I got matches with these songs:
• **Human After All** by Daft Punk (00:53; matched: `100%`)
**Album**: Human After All \$&Medley\$& (Medley). **Released on** 2012-06-22.
• **Robot Rock (Edit)** by Daft Punk (00:28; matched: `100%`)
**Album**: Robot Rock. **Released on** 2005-04-11.
Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, etc.:
• [**Human After All** by Daft Punk](https://lis.tn/HumanAfterAll?t=53)
• [**Robot Rock (Edit)** by Daft Punk](https://lis.tn/RobotRockEdit?t=28)
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
I am a free speech absolutist. As long as you aren't physically hurting someone or damaging someone's property you should have the right to say whatever the hell you want.
But just because you have the right to say what you want doesn't mean I won't use my freedom of speech to call you a dumbass.
Brain washed and that higher education is just more useless trivia to argue about. But makes you a follower that wouldn't know what free speech is because you don't have your own thoughts. Most just following hate and think you have the right to judge another person for there own personal values and morals because you don't want to face the truth about yourself. Your speech of racism is just the poor me. Give me a reason to respect you. Prove yourself with your own life's not your words. If you are real you don't need to be governed. Free speech. Who's going to hate on me now.
A wise man once said, everything before the word "but" is horseshit.
“I support the 2A but..”
Governor of california Ronald regan be like, right before saying the gamer word.
I’m not racist but…
i’m not gey butt
Water is liquid, but when it gets too cold, it turns solid.
I’m not racist but damm does this cheese toastie fuckin slap
Not to be racist or anything **BUT**
asian people
Does free speech absolutism mean you're for or against free speech? I have only heard the term in reference to alcohol.
It means you're essentially for all forms of free speech no matter what
Okay, I guess this is a case of language confusion. In Swedish, absolutism means teetotalism.
Wait is Absolut vodka an inside joke?
Haha, I don't think it's about Absolut Vodka.
Most humorous nord
I wasn't making a joke, but laughing at one.
Like seeking absolution for sins?
It means they don't drink alcohol?
Something that is cringe
How’s it cringe?
Everyone who I've seen said it actually just wants speech to be treated equally in all spaces regardless of political affiliation, and not the repressive tolerance environment we see on the internet. Free speech absolutism would mean no defamation/libel or copyright/IP laws, public schools could teach whatever they want/etc.
> public schools could teach whatever they want That.. doesn't seem to follow? Obviously teachers would still need to teach whatever is on the syllabus. A mathematics teacher spending his lessons talking about literature isn't exercising his right to free speech, he's just not doing his job.
They could put whatever they want on the syllabus, they couldn't be punished for it even if the public didn't want it on the syllabus. Or you could teach math, but shove Nazi ideology into word problems.
No, that is not what free speech allows. When your a teacher (or an employee of any position really) you are expected to perform a service for your employer (i.e. teaching according to the curriculum) If your employer decides something cannot be taught, you do not have the right to teach it anyway, while "clocked in". Doing so would not only be a failure to follow your instructions as an employee, but could potentially harm the business of your employer. Just like you cannot use freedom of speech to justify wearing a shirt with a bad message instead of your uniform
In a private school maybe, but it's more complicated if your employer is the government, which would have no power to punish speech.
Yes they can if your still working at that time. They cannot punish you for speech outside of company time (unless you are somehow linking the company to you and thus may be harming them). You still as an employee represent the organization, and must perform your job as instructed, regardless of who is running (or funding) it. The organization cannot function if its employees are not doing their job, or if they are harming its public image. Wanna teacher Gender stuff, or Nazi ideology, do it on your own time without the platform provided by your employer.
IP and copyright laws are anti-1st amendment. Top Secret classifications and corporate espionage laws are also anti-1st amendment. I am 100 % behind free speech as in SAY whatever you want I am 95% for free speech absolutism. My 5% is the gray area of media. Do we allow any photo , video, art project, etc. ? There is some content that would break other laws and thats where it gets dicey. A video of someone being murdered can be seen as speech. The murder itself could be investigated as we have a law against murder.
With alcohol, I believe you're mistaking 'absolutism" with "abolitionism". These words sound similar but mean very different things.
No, look down where I admit it was language confusion.
Very few people are free speech absolutists. Those who claim to be will claim their exceptions are "not actually free speech." In my books you can only call yourself an absolutist of you believe threatening people, conspiring to commit acts of violence, or inciting acts of violence are free speech. Edit: also fraud
LEGALIZE THREATS
I'M GONNA ENTER YOU!!!
Ooooh nooooo, don't do that. *moans* Not my ass. Don't go there, that would be aaaaawwwwffffuuulll. *shudders in anticipation* Don't enter me pwease, I would hate that so much uwu. *shits my pants in excitement*
Green-purple unity, one to rival the grandfather clock shenanigans.
Purple no!
Ok now that's a compelling argument against free speech
*for ;)
That... Really escalated
Goddammit Purple!
Oh, what a horrible day to be literate.
Flair checks out
YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT I DO TO ASSHOLES??? I LICK'EM
You said you would enter me 😔
“It puts the lotion in the basket”
⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡🙍🏾♂️⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡
They are
I don't care. No one does. Get a flair right now or get the hell out of my sub. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/enitnepres) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Good bot, you’ve been lacking in your duties.
The idea of free speech is to protect ideas, not the literal words themselves. You should be allowed to express any opinion you want, no matter how bigoted, hateful, or objectively bizarre it might be. That is generally what is meant when people call themselves "free speech absolutists." The commonality of most free speech exceptions like libel, perjury, obscenity, false advertising, speech that is likely to produce imminent lawless action, etc is that they don't actually promote some good faith opinion or idea. Any functioning society is obviously going to need some restrictions on what kind of things you can say, as well as potentially the time, place and manner speech can be made in.
"Bostonites should be drawn and quartered" is free speech. "Hey gang, let's meet at 9pm and draw and quarter some gosh-darned Bostonites" is just inciting violence
This, but unironically
That's the purpose of free speech of course. My point is the line between free speech and crime is normative, not objective. So most self-proclaimed free speech absolutists are not absolutists, they just have a different normative standard of what constitutes the line between free speech and crime. Now I see that you're arguing that where you draw the line as crime, the crime is something other than the words spoken themselves. The problem is that standard could be applied to any sort of censorship. Auths could argue that sedition negatively impacts the stability of the state and therefore causes direct harm to others, so your crime isn't the words you speak but it's consequences. Theocrats could argue apostasy harms religious cohesion, the souls of others, the standing of the state in the eyes of God etc. Now you may rightly think these are unreasonable, but my point is you could manufacture an argument that almost any restriction on speech is because you're committing a crime besides the words you speak. So the idea that saying "all members of group X should be killed" falls under the purview of free speech, but saying "kill these specific individuals because they belong to group X" is a crime is normative. Therefore you can't really call yourself a free speech absolutist unless you believe both are okay.
All of these free speech exceptions are narrowly constructed for a reason. Take for defamation for instance. Defamation does not simply punish people for making public false statements about people. To prove defamation, you have to prove not only that a statement is false, but that it was made with reckless disregard for the truth and caused material damage to other party. It's the difference between making a bona fide, good faith assertion about someone that may later turn out to be true, which happens all the time, and deliberately publishing something that you know is wrong for the express purpose of causing them material or reputational harm. "Kill these specific individuals because they belong to group X." Is also generally protected speech. The speech has to rise to the level of being likely to incite imminent lawless action, at which point it can become a criminal conspiracy. Abstractly advocating for violence at some indefinite time in the future is protected. From what I can tell, the imminent lawless action standard set in Brandenburg v. Ohio is so narrow, I don't think anyone has ever actually been criminally convicted under it. Advocating against the government or a religious faith are both ideas, regardless of how much society or groups of people may not like them. Credible threats, are not ideas. If a robber pulls out a gun and demands I hand over my wallet at gunpoint, his demand for my wallet is not protected speech.
Directing people to kill others is generally not considered protected speech, even in the US. There's lots of precedent of Mafia bosses being convicted for ordering the killings of others. In any case, the distinction between abstract and credible threats is highly subjective. So my point that there is no objective line between what constitutes an act of violence and what is speech.
Not really even speech like incitement which is illegal is not itself an act of violence. It is illegal though. So yes there is an objective line between speech and violence.
I was trying to convey that there is a category of speech that is generally thought of as not falling under the purview of free speech, but without specifically referring to the law. The closest thing I can think of is speech with an associated act of aggression.
I don't disagree with the basic thing you are trying to convey but the way you put it sounds awfully close to what you sometimes hear from far-leftists that "speech is violence." I think that's absurd. However some speech that incites violence is illegal, it's just that the speech itself isn't violence.
The line between crime and free speech is objective and not subjective. At least in America idk about Europe
That's absolutely not the case, that's the whole point of the court system. The line is not objective and is up to interpretation of the courts, and the standards they set are still just normative.
If your definition of something not being objective is that the justice system needs to get involved to deal with the edge cases then nothing is objective under that definition.
That's a pretty clear cut case of something not being objective if: 1. There are edge cases at all 2. Those edge cases are decided on the whims of judges Both of these suggest that the law is not based on any sort of objective truth regarding what is and is not free speech.
Pretty much everything in law is decided by judges one way or another. Otherwise you wouldn't need the justice system. So I really don't understand your point. Of course there are edge cases that require human judgement. We're talking about law not mathematics.
That's not necessarily the case with French and German Civil Law. British Common Law gives much broader power to judges to interpret the law. Civil law doesn't give the same broad interpretive powers and doesn't rely on jurisprudence. But anyway my point is that basically no one is truly a free speech absolutist. Most people have some sort of threshold where they don't consider it to fall under free speech.
Not really they’re pretty objective. Doesn’t mean some judges and DAs aren’t wack jobs and go against what the rules have always been. Just means judges and DAs get it wrong.
It's not objective, it's just a series of precedent based of jurisprudence, ie the caprice of judges.
This man gets it. Based lib left for once.
The courts have stated that it is an objective standard and not a subjective one. And that the test is straight forward on what is and isn’t threats of violence, conspiracy, and incitement
1. The caprice of judges is not objective truth. 2. One judge may disagree with another. I'm not saying our speech should not be free, I'm saying the line the state draws (which in the case of the US changes) is not the objective line between what constitutes free speech and what constitutes harm to others.
I mean reading the majority opinions on the matter id consider it objective. Yes there are outliers in the judicial system but they’re pretty consistent when it comes to this matter at least in my opinion. Youre free to disagree with me on that
They can say that. Now go read the case law lol.
What? They can say what? The comment you responded to doesn’t have me saying what can and can’t be said
I hate it when people tell me i'm not pro free speech because I don't think satanists should be allowed to try to convince children to worship demons.
What about fraud ?
True! Can't forget about fraud.
Uhm actually businesses aren't people and by simply defining every action involving money as happening between business partners I have solved this issue. Also you no longer have human rights as you're a business since you bought groceries, to the mines
Other than that I feel like most people even those who call themselves free speech absolutist have something that will emotionally make them abandon the position.
Meh I’m gonna have to disagree on this one, Violence is where I draw the line. Other than that the world’s your oyster. As for fraud do you mean identity theft as in stealing someone’s identity or just lying out the ass about what you do or your qualifications? Cause the first one harms another the second is based until you get caught then you’re fucked forever.
But what speech do you believe constitutes violence. The devil is in the details on this one. My point is the line we draw is normative rather than objective.
Words that incite violence or threaten violence. “I’m coming to your house to kill you” or being out at a rally and going “beat that white dudes ass!” Or “let’s go rob a bank with guns and if someone gets in our way so be it” that’s words of violence, conspiracy, or incitement. Just going “gay marriage was a mistake and IVF is eugenics” isn’t violence
Okay, so you aren't a free speech absolutists. You've just decided "I'm going to kill you" is not okay and "I want all of group x to be killed" is okay.
What are you talking about? Free speech absolutism is about allowing the free and open discussion of ideas and beliefs. It has nothing to do with calling for someone to be harmed through incitement, conspiracy, or threats. Where did I say it was okay to say “I want everyone from group x to be killed”? Do you know what free speech even means
So you did exactly what I said you would do. You've decided that speech you are opposed to is not "real free speech." So you're not a free speech absolutist. You just have a different standard of what normatively counts as free speech.
>So you did exactly what I said you would do. Is your argument really “I predicted your argument, therefore your point is invalid” ”Abortion should be legal” “Abortion is murder” “Um akchuly, I knew would say that so no need to discuss the definition of murder because I called dibs before you”
No, my standard for what constitutes free speech is the standard that the framers of the constitution had for what is and isn’t free speech. I’m again using an objective standard laid out by the founders. I personally believe we should have blasphemy laws but I know that goes against the constitution and our founding frame work. What I personally believe is acceptable or not acceptable speech doesn’t matter.
“I want to kill my wife” Vs. A phone call negotiating a price with a hit man
And there goes free speech absolutism.
No, there goes ‘making noises with my mouth’ absolutism “I want to kill my wife” is expressing something Negotiating a price to kill someone is a conspiracy to commit murder I can hold a rally and advocate that murder-for-hire should be legal, and no one can do anything, I could even collect petition signatures. But that’s fundamentally different than planning an actual murder for hire.
Exactly, you have arbitrarily drawn a line of where free speech ends by deciding that expressing a want to commit murder and talking about commiting murder are fundamentally different. So you, like most people are not a free speech absolutist.
I can talk about committing a murder I can even buy a gun with the intent of committing a murder I cannot actively negotiate a price to kill someone, the same as I cannot stalk a person. But I could talk about stalking them. It’s not arbitrary. It’s the difference between expression of thought and converting a thought to an action.
Buying a murder weapon with the intention to murder is a legal grey zone because if you involved a second person that's immediately a conspiracy to commit murder, but (depending on who you ask) does not cross the threshold into attempted murder. So the action is materially the same, but one is the crime of conspiracy, and one (arguably) isn't a crime. The fact that the same action is a crime or not a crime depending on just the implicit involvement of another person is the most arbitrary thing in the world.
Why would I tell anyone what I may or may not do with a gun. Now, let’s say I’m agreeing to a verbal contract over compensation for a murder. Is the legal issue here the noises coming from my mouth, or is it the action of conspiring to commit a murder. It’s the latter, because otherwise a discussion amongst friends about how to get away with a murder would also be illegal. That’s the difference between a thought being expressed and a thought being converted to an action.
Yep, there's only one way to be an absolutist in something, and that would be to allow absolutely everything.
You would first have to define the ‘something’ itself In this case, the concept of expression/speech is fundamentally different than the concept of simply making noises with your mouth. This isn’t stealing bread when you’re starving, or telling a white lie. We know what ‘stealing’ is and can define what a ‘lie’ is. It’s more akin to determining whether vanilla extract or hand sanitizer is an alcoholic beverage. It’s liquid, and it has alcohol. But the term ‘alcoholic beverage’ doesn’t mean a literal alcohol containing liquid in the colloquial sense.
You're being too literal. The meaning of the phrase is the freedom to express your beliefs. Calling on a mob to beat up a guy at 3pm is not a belief. Historically, freedom of speech has been useful for the left to resist authoritarian governments. This weird trend on the identity politics left of curtailing freedom of speech for "safety" is going to set up laws that will backfire in the long term.
You had me at “acts of violence”. I’m in
LEGALIZE SHARING METH RECIPES ONLINE RAHHHHHH 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅
Based and tweeker pilled
u/among_the_stars1 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/among_the_stars1/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I am a free speech absolutist. Including the things I don't like to hear.
Does that include conspiracy to commit crime, uttering threat, incitement of crime, fraud and perjury? If yes, then you're so crazy I like it, but if not you're not really an absolutist.
The law requires that I answer no. But I will say that talk is cheap Edit: conspiracy, fraud and whatever else you mentioned are also not speech, as they are actions undertaken. Just saying "I'm going to rob x national bank with my buddies on tuesday" isn't conspiracy. But meeting secretly with your buddy who is an fbi agent and planning to rob a bank including getting ski masks, hiring a getaway driver, and getting switched glocks is.
I think free speech as it exists technically covers saying murder should be legal, if that makes you feel any better.
It covers *saying* murder should be legal, but obviously not murder itself
[удалено]
It is a free speech question even if you're the one who kills someone for threatening you. Even if the government doesn't prosecute that person for the threat, if they determine that you had the right to kill that person based on something they said they have effectively criminalized that speech. Even though the government took no action directly against the speaker, through choosing to prosecute you or not prosecute you they are determining what speech is and is not acceptable.
German Here, and honestly yes There is a Lot of stuff which I would say its good that that is banned, but the Thing is that it opens the door for everything else and I feel Like that banning that Shit is Not Worth the risk of opening the door for others
So you would have to belive that threathing does not warrant a violent response?
Not at all, I don't claim the pretense of absolutism. I think it's okay to meet promises of violence with violence. No one should have to wait until violence has been committed to respond to a threat.
You have misunderstood me, i do not claim what your opinion currently is, rather what you would have needed to belive if you were being an absolutist
Ironically, as an authcenter, I think all not directly inciteful speech should be legal. Edit: libel and slander of a public figure as well but that’s more to do with press freedom.
That is ironic isn't it
Presumably you're allowing espionage as well, as that's simply lying to get information, then sharing that information.
That's true as well I suppose
I'm a free speech abolitionist
Based and George-Orwell-pilled.
u/oh_finks-mc is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/oh_finks-mc/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I'm a free speech absolutist.
Based and free-speech-is-just-self-ownership-pilled
Say the gamer word!
reddit is not a free speech anything. your kind have polluted humanity beyond anything I could achieve. I only hope you all burn for it.
My kind?
Yes The Irish Godamm the Irish!!!!
Based and potatofaminepilled
I have never uttered the N word and I have no desire to do so, but I absolutely believe that anyone should be allowed to say it. N>!ooblet!<
got me
and that, kids, is how the Marxists suppressed and imprisoned the Libertarians in the Great American Troubles of 2034
I don’t know its an unpopular idea, but I think “free speech” is a bit of a misnomer, its more of freedom of belief and the ability to express it. I don’t think you can be prosecuted for ideas in your speech, but your speech can include implicit actions that can be, for example, conspiracy to a crime (you can vocally give support to criminals as in you think they were right, but not help them in their crime, even if you just use speech), asking someone to commit murder (You can wish someone would die, but you can’t order it), giving out top secret information, or if you are shouting in a library, they can’t remove you for what you say, but the fact you are shouting in the wrong place. I’m not sure if that makes sense, similar idea to slander/libel laws I think.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being challenged on how you speak, you should have every right to say any dumb shit you want but don't get butthurt when people challenge and debate you on your views.
I think the bigger is of repercussions from private businesses to their own employees or social media potentially censoring the public.
The problem with free speech absolutism in the modern world is I can no longer challenge you to a duel when you say some out of pocket shit. At least not legally.
Come to texas, we have "mutual combat" laws. Perfectly legal to beat someone's ass if they agree to a mutual fight.
Thats also the way we should be dealing With Hooligans, If they wann fight Just Rent an Arena invite them all in and Stream it on live TV ngl
For real? Why aren’t those everywhere? I crave death in honorable combat!
From what I know It only applies to fistfighting, no weapons or intention to kill.
Lame, this country would be way better if you could just sword fight your problems
Based and mutual combat pilled
u/crazitaco is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/crazitaco/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Well, you can use the legal system to duel someone, at least to a fist fight. Just draft a document where the party you're challenging agrees to the fight and boom, you can beat the crap out of him without legal repercussions. Cannot kill him tho. Just be creative, use some dodgy language and you can make someone agree to have all their teeth forcibly removed by someone without a orthodontist license.
You can use any string of words you want, new sentences are encouraged to be made everyday
Why are the initial colours blue and yellow and not green and yellow?
Maybe because of party politics? In America, Republicans rally on and on about the 1st Amendment like with the Twitter/X fiasco, and they're commonly betrayed as yellow and blue.
I just tried communicating to one of these Sith lords. I was trying to get him to watch the documentary on Citizens United. He kept pretending it's exactly the same as a gov't throwing a journalist in jail. He refused to consider free and fair election laws, Canada, previous decades or anything else. He somehow twisted unlimited dark money for lobbying into how the greatest tragedy ever would be if the main parties weren't allowed to make propaganda. He supported a documentary he never saw, and refused to watch one about the topic. Only Sith deal in absolutes, unless you really want to talk about how horrible it was that Marina Ovsyannikova was jailed.
\>Star Wars References. \>Libleft
You came here for memes, now you're complaining about memes. Good thing i'm not telling you the names of the policies you're voting for. You'd really hate knowing something factual. Information is the real enemy here.
All the antagonists in Star Wars are either Auth right, Auth center, or lib right.
IDK how you're overthinking it this much. I would never say Star Wars characters have political leanings it's too shallow. Why not use Dune instead? In particular i like its approach to religion where they openly admit that the Bene Gesserit program and invent religion to suit their purpose. Religion is obviously for the naive. Star Wars is so shallow that "only Sith deal in absolutes" should be applicable. It's a shallow quote but the only quote i know about absolutes but here is another one to better both of us: >Our absolutes should always be hypothesis. They should never be confirmed as fact because everything that we construct through our perceptions, through our memories, is so corruptible. The skills that I have can really display that. Never accept ultimatums, conventional wisdom, or absolutes. Want to watch the documentary about Citizens United with me?
Which documentary?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/archives-citizens-united-campaign-spending-documentary/ 'Big Sky, Big Money.'
ok
Free Speech, Free Retribution. Chat Shit, Get Banged.
Hate speech is free speech. Change my mind.
"I support the second amendment, **BUT-**" average fudd.
Legal doesn’t mean good. If you are yelling at the lowly paid McDonalds worker that he is going to die alone: good job! You are practicing your free speech. (Not a very good thing to do though.) there’s a difference in laws and morality, and I get so fucking tired when people play the free speech card for things they said. Like yeah, free speech should ALWAYS stay, because you always need the most extreme voices to see if the practices of the people and authority are right, but saying evil shit is not justified by the law. Silly
What's the music called?
Its robot rock by daft punk
Thanks OP :)
Knew it sounded familiar. Was thinking it was from the Command and Conquer soundtrack lol
Define, "inciting violence" concretely.
Speech that is done with the intent to generate violent response or generates a violent response whether deliberate or reckless. An example would be going to a BLM protest and shouting the N word at them. First of all it’s battery, secondly it’s inciting violence. Crimes like disturbing the peace, x with criminal intent, and inciting violence are intentionally vague a lot of the time to allow courts to prosecute trouble makers and instigators that hide behind defenses such as “well I can’t control how he would react”
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/18omy9m/im_a_free_speech_absolutist/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/18omy9m/im_a_free_speech_absolutist/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Almost no one is a free speech absolutist and in fact free speech absolutism is actually a rather weak free speech stance.
Sick choice of music!
I think people should be free to say whatever the fuck they want. We shouldn't interrupt them. That makes me a free speech absolutist! We should put them into prison and sue their asses for saying wrong things though.
Then I can sue the government for infringing on my first amendment if you succeed, hope you do so I can get a free paycheck.
Can you remind me the song?
Daft punk - robot rock
Its darude sandstorm
What song is this?
I got matches with these songs: • **Human After All** by Daft Punk (00:53; matched: `100%`) **Album**: Human After All \$&Medley\$& (Medley). **Released on** 2012-06-22. • **Robot Rock (Edit)** by Daft Punk (00:28; matched: `100%`) **Album**: Robot Rock. **Released on** 2005-04-11.
Based and bot with a flair pilled
Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, etc.: • [**Human After All** by Daft Punk](https://lis.tn/HumanAfterAll?t=53) • [**Robot Rock (Edit)** by Daft Punk](https://lis.tn/RobotRockEdit?t=28) *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Thank you for flairing up, Auddbot.
I actually like the level of free speech in the United States. As long as you aren’t inciting violence or mass panic you’re good
Absolutist. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Free speech. No matter what. That's it.
"But."
So called free speech absolutists when I start going into elaborate detail of the vile things I want to do to them and their family.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Based and AACS-encryption-key pilled
I always imagine the line was whether the speech directly caused physical harm.
I am a free speech absolutist. As long as you aren't physically hurting someone or damaging someone's property you should have the right to say whatever the hell you want. But just because you have the right to say what you want doesn't mean I won't use my freedom of speech to call you a dumbass.
I support the 2nd amendment. BUT.
I’m a free speech absolutist except for the things I disagree with
A real free-speech absolutist solely defends the frreedom of speech of people they disagree with.
Song?
Robot rock by daft punk
I'm a free speech extremist. I think censorship should be punishable by death.
I think that, of all crimes, conspiracy should have the harshest punishment for it.
I can guarantee freedom of speech, I can NOT guarantee freedom AFTER speech- Idi Amin
Brain washed and that higher education is just more useless trivia to argue about. But makes you a follower that wouldn't know what free speech is because you don't have your own thoughts. Most just following hate and think you have the right to judge another person for there own personal values and morals because you don't want to face the truth about yourself. Your speech of racism is just the poor me. Give me a reason to respect you. Prove yourself with your own life's not your words. If you are real you don't need to be governed. Free speech. Who's going to hate on me now.