[_heimdall]

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I come from the US and have a view of free speech that is decidedly in conflict with how America handles speech today.

I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively agrees to ban it, but they no longer have free speech.

[ta1243]

You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence?

America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits

[_heimdall]

Child pornography is not speech. Copyrights also aren't related to free speech as far as I'm aware, that's intellectual property law.

I don't have a problem with libel, no. People could say what they want about me, its not my problem unless the courts and jury allow a case against me with no evidence.

Anything one says can't incite suicide. As terrible as it is that is a decision made by the person who committed suicide. I've lost a close childhood friend and a close family member to suicide, it was their chose alone and I would never put burden that on someone else.

[throwaway11836]

>You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency?

I fail to see how porn or money can be categorized as speech.

[ta1243]

So your definition of free speech is different to others, for example JSG Boggs [0]. Unsurprising really, and not really "wrong", any more than people who have different opinions to you are wrong.

[0] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jsg-boggs-money-artist-die...

[_heimdall]

I do personally disagree with this definition. Free speech was always intended to protect the right to say whatever you want. The expansion of what falls under free speech is dangerous and, as made clear today, leads to arguments that erode what was originally meant to be a fundamental right.

[ta1243]

> Free speech was always intended to protect the right to say whatever you want.

Who intended that?

So you have no problem with defamation? Or threats?