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.
The very first thing that would die is truth. There is no way to solve that without “censoring” or limiting speech.
Here are some problems that would just rocket their way into everyone’s lives
- Impersonation, made much easier online
- Scams and frauds would no longer be crimes
- Unregulated advertising, effectively the same problem as above (this health supplement will cure cancer and make your dick grow!!!)
- Defamation and general reputation killing would happen every 5 seconds
- Some assholes leaving porn playing on public streets and in front of schools, 24/7, because lulz
- Same as above, but with disgusting shit like 2girls1cup, goatse and similars
You can see it in controlled media speech already. Propaganda can say whatever the hell it wants without any repercussions whatsoever until it pisses off the wrong corporation/government.
It’s like that, but for everyone.
Hate speech, You can’t forbid it under absolute free speech.
What problems would that bring?
I guess you could argue Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance would be an unsolvable logical error that would result.
But also I would argue that anyone who is calling anyone else a free speech absolutist is misunderstanding what that other person stands for.
What about people who call themselves free speech absolutists?
I doubt that most of them have the same interpretation of absolutists in this context that you do.
I get called a free speech absolutist because I believe that you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist, I would not.
Out of curiosity, do you consider the sentence below to be a direct incitement to actionable violence?
“It would be patriotic if someone were to stop Person X from enacting their agenda, even if they used force.”
If yes, what exactly qualifies it as a “direct incitement”?
Additionally, would you say it makes a difference whether the sentence above is said by Joe Shmoe vs televised and said by a powerful person with many followers hanging at their every word?
Depends who says it. If Joe shmoe says it on Lemmy then id say its fine. If someone said it televised (and where knowledgeable of it being televised, if they are not then its the person televising it who is making it actionable and thus their fault) then it’s actionable and thus u can’t say it.
I’d say the sentence is a direct incitement of violence. But its not always actionable.
How is free speech in your definition “absolute”?
I would probably define absolute free speech the same way you did. I’ve given you my definition of free speech. And some people call my definition absolute.
This is the one I’m using from the dictionary
free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute freedom.
From your sentence
[…] you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist
I think it’s clear that by definition they are incorrect.
However, I’d go further back to another thing you said
But also I would argue that anyone who is calling anyone else a free speech absolutist is misunderstanding what that other person stands for.
I disagree there. It’s some. “Anyone” is without exception.
Yeah I’d agree. I guess anyone just sounds more assertive than some. Perhaps I should have said most.
There are certain materials such as CSAM that people are not totally immune to. Most people will always find it repugnant, a minority will always be drawn to it. But there is a portion in the middle who do not ever think of it only because they are not exposed to it. Unrestrained sharing of it normalises it and the behaviours that come with it. There are some parallels with addictive drugs. Constraints on free speech are akin to banning cigarette advertising or making heroin illegal. Yes, in principle, everyone should be able to manage themselves well enough that anyone can take whatever they want. In reality, we democratically decide society is just healthier for everyone if certain things have constraints.
I think I like this argument. Absolute free speech would make surprising things quasi-legal. Things like CSAM could be shared and people could be forcefully exposed to it “because not doing so would limit my free speech”.
That’s a good one.
Well if it’s really absolute then you could legally point a knife at someone and say “give me your money” . You haven’t caused physical harm at that point and you’re only exercising your freedom of speech.
You could say OK, that’s not allowed because you’re mugging somebody and that’s a threat of violence. But in that case you’ve carved out an exception for threats of violence and therefore calling for violence against a person or group also becomes not allowed.
What about exceptions for fraud? What about for verbal abuse or harrassment?
And if you’re going to have exceptions, then how do you deal with obfuscated language and insinuation? “Would be a real shame if something bad were to happen to your family” - is that allowed? A nice friendly, supportive comment like that? If you can’t say that you can’t say anything.
Or that’s usually how it goes with people defending hate speech or veiled threats of racial violence.
The idea of free-speech-absolutism relies on a top-down model which only examines how a government or platform should regulate speech, while completely ignoring how free a space is depends as much on who participates as who controls.
Free speech is also dependent on the twin stupidities that a “market places of ideas” will produce good ideas, or that debate could possibly settle the most trivial issue.
As someone once said on TV Tropes, “flat earthing is all fun and games until one of them tries to build bridges”.
A philosopher has told a rule that goes like this:
You are free to say and do whatever you want, unless it would hurt your fellow humans.
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.
there is no way you could ever come to a common understanding
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.
Free speech and freedom of opinion, in my understanding, are two very different things.
The “free speech” touted by the usual actors is the thing that, if truly implemented, would get most people punched in the mouth. People tend to confuse the possibility of saying anything they want and not being censored for their words/ideas with the notion of speaking without concern and not receiving any sort of consequences.
So, to the extent of my comprehension, free speech would lead to violence.
Freedom of opinion, again, as I understand it, is the recognized right to differ from the socially recognized and established view on any subject but understanding that, regardless your freedom to diverge from it, you are responsible for your words.
Technically speaking, that is practiced. Try as the Government may, they can’t censor free speech directed towards them or about them. By default that any attempt should they keep trying, is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, which something people horribly get wrong a lot of the time.
People will and have said a lot of shit around social media and to others freely. Because social media and the people they talk to, aren’t the government. But, which is another thing people are stupidly oblivious to, that what is said outside of that government scope, subjects them to be penalized. Such as being banned, being muted, being excommunicated, being brought to court and even be subjected to go to jail.
So for example, I have the free speech to tell X someone to go and kill themselves. They do so. So what does that do? Well, I just violated a cyberbullying law right there and I committed an act of murder remotely. And to addition to my would-be punishment, I’ve indirectly revoked my right to free speech.
Where I’m getting at or to just put it plainly, people need to be more moderate and regulated in how they practice their free speech and to whom. The part that nobody ever wants to confront or deal with, are the consequences about that free speech that it could bring to them. It’s a two way street, not one.
There’s really no realistic workaround to this.
Doesn’t “total free speech” boils down to “the right to lie”?
Are you obliged to tell the truth (or be sanctioned in some way) or can you just lie?
Imagine someone wants to defend their rights in court against a company that wronged them.
But the company has the resources to publish AI-generated child porn featuring that person everywhere.
And that would be legal.If free speech is understood as: government cannot stop you from saying things, it can become toxic, awful, but no real problems would arise
