[lm28469]

> Freedom of speech is absolute.

Hm, where ? when ?

I've heard lot of Americans defending that line as if "freedom of speech" was literally an unconditional universal right given by God to the human race.

Freedom of speech is either nonexistent or heavily restricted in most places because total freedom inevitably ends up with other people losing their own freedom/rights.

It's illegal and punishable by law to be openly homophobic in France. it's illegal and punishable by law to be openly nazi in Germany.

[ecshafer]

>I've heard lot of Americans defending that line as if "freedom of speech" was literally an unconditional universal right given by God to the human race.

Freedom of speech is an unconditional universal right given by God to the human race. The government taking away your rights does not mean those rights do not intrinsically exist.

>It's illegal and punishable by law to be openly homophobic in France.

And Voltaire would be rolling in his grave.

[lm28469]

> And Voltaire would be rolling in his grave.

I don't think you have read much Voltaire by the way, he was very much pro tolerance and anti hate. People love to brandish "freedom of speech" without understanding neither its history nor its meaning.

It's almost comically opposed to hate speech actually, let Voltaire out of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if the only thing you know about Voltaire is this misattributed quote that everybody like to parade with:

> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[lm28469]

> Freedom of speech is an unconditional universal right given by God to the human race.

Which God ?

Do you also complain about the government taking your rights away when they tell you not to drive the wrong way on the interstate after drinking half a bottle of vodka ?

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

You're conflating the right to express oneself with the right to act violently. Those two are not the same hence the same logic does not apply.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Do you not believe expression can be violent? That's what this is about. Expression that harms people.

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

I make a distinction between physical violence and what you refer to as harm.

I do not believe people must be protected from harm in that manner. Words can be hurtful but they do not directly kill of cause injury.

Suppose this very discussion was causing you harm, as you define it, would that make it illegal to even discuss the topic?

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

Hating someone is an opinion. It is not an act of violence.

I disagree with both of those laws.

[lm28469]

That's why freedom of speech and freedom of thought are two different things in France.

You can have all the opinions you want, you just can't go to the town hall and scream about how you want to exterminate the jews

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

That's a very big "just". What good is an opinion if you cannot express it?

[easterncalculus]

Recognizing a legal right to think is only a pretext for someone to justify taking that right away. Of course you can think freely, and it's ridiculous to even imply that taking that away is an option through stating so in the law.

Obviously homophobia is wrong, the problem with this kind of thinking is that there isn't any real evidence that outlawing speech protects people's rights. Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.

[lm28469]

> Recognizing a legal right to think is only a pretext for someone to justify taking that right away. Of course you can think freely, and it's ridiculous to even imply that taking that away is an option through stating so in the law.

Have you heard of the Lumières ? These principles basically created modern Europe, but sure, it's just a trick to steal your freedom of thought...

> there isn't any real evidence that outlawing speech protects people's rights.

Plenty of people are being harassed in public for their sexuality, race, etc. you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.

> Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.

? People wrote the laws. Rights are made up, they're not universal constants

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

> Plenty of people are being harassed in public for their sexuality, race, etc.

Harassment, regardless of motive, is illegal. Is there a need to make it more illegal?

> you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.

Restricting a collective right does in no way grant more rights to a minority. It may (superficially and short term) improve their lives but do you really thing people will be less hateful from being told they are hateful? I always found that conclusion odd

"Hate" is fuzzy. Some Jews believe hate is any kind of critique of Israel. "Racism" is fuzzy. Some black people believe it is racist to dance a certain way if you're not black. "Sexism" is fuzzy. Some women believe they have been violated by a compliment.

Definitions change. Most of the time irrationally. What was well-intentioned yesterday becomes hateful tomorrow.

This is a slippery slope my friend. Not many things in life are absolute but freedom to speak your mind must be one of them.

[easterncalculus]

> Plenty of people are being harassed in public for their sexuality, race, etc. you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.

Being harassed is wrong and illegal but what I meant to say is that it doesn't take your rights away. These two things are fundamentally separate. Someone breaking your rights does not mean that you then don't have them under the law. Which is the reason I wrote this:

> Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.

Because even though people codify laws they write them into law for a reason, so that the current mainstream discourse or some refuse someone throws at you cannot easily take them away. Hopefully I'm making myself clearer in that regard, since it's not the kind of thing I wanted to equate. I definitely wasn't asking for the requirement of any kind of long study on this topic.

[lm28469]

I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts. If these texts were revolutionary at the time it's because they were not enforced before. You could be legally imprisoned for your thoughts (which you had or people thought you had), and it still is the case in many places around the world.

> Hating someone is an opinion. It is not an act of violence.

> What good is an opinion if you cannot express it?

So which is it ? Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

Those statements are not in opposition to each other,

> Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence

If you define an insult to be violent in the same way as taking a life then I see why we are so far from each other. I make a clear distinction between the two. Do you really think an insult is an act of violence? I'm curious why you would think that

Inciting to violence and performing a violent act is not the same thing. If they were one could defer responsibility to the actor who incited one to be violent. That ends all personal responsibility for ones own actions.

> I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts.

Such derogatory remarks does not further any conversation. I'm here to debate - to learn - to expose myself to different worlds. I hope you are as well. Question - don't assume.

[dmitrygr]

In some parts of geography and history, freedom of speech did exist, including freedom of vile disagreeable speech, like the example you gave. The place used to be USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

[easterncalculus]

What a lot of people don't understand is that speech has a legal definition that is especially relevant in cases of libel or incitement. Once it can be considered speech, the content of that speech in public areas is allowed to vary under the first amendment in the US.

It's not splitting hairs, because this is routinely debated in courts all over the country. As for whether or not people having the ability to speak freely leads to a loss of rights, the US has been around for some time now and is pretty quickly gaining rights for people in the grand scheme of things. The suppression of speech has not fared the same, and both sides of the aisle can (hypocritically) point to suppression of speech leading to a loss or possible loss of rights. If we want to talk about speech and history, it's much easier to find examples of control that goes too far, and often a lot more quickly.