Subj : Re: free speech
To : jimmylogan
From : Boraxman
Date : Sat May 24 2025 12:12 pm
-=> jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
ji> @MSGID: <
[email protected]>
ji> @REPLY: <
[email protected]>
-=> Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Bo> Re: free speech
Bo> By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm
> Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
> who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
> FREE speech. You don't have to like it.
>
ji> Free speech is when you can SPEAK or WRITE, but not express
ji> yourself however you want. Is expressing yourself punching
ji> someone in the nose? That is not free speech.
Agree. People conflate Freedom of Speech with Freedom of Expression.
Limiting how one expresses themselves, without necessarily limiting
their ability to convey ideas, isn't to me an infringement on Freedom
of Speech. However, limitations on expression are really only
justified in narrow circumstances, where others would otherwise be *directly*
harmed. Censorship is another matter still.
Bo> People think that Free Speech is about you saying what you like. The
Bo> idea, the supporting philosophy for Free Speech is the need for ideas
Bo> to be challenged, and for ideas to be challenged, then there must be
Bo> protection for those challenging.
ji> I don't disagree.
Bo> Free Speech is there to ensure that people are able to hear other
Bo> peoples ideas, in particular, those which challenge the established
Bo> norms, powers and are not the mainstream position.
Bo> The purpose of Free Speech, is to ensure that YOU can hear my argument
Bo> if you want to, and ensure that I can make my argument to those who are
Bo> a willing audience. If you are blocked from hearing arguments, you are
Bo> harmed. It harms you more than me, because I already know what I'm
Bo> going to say, but you don't.
ji> Sounds like we are saying the same thing. You should have the
ji> ability to express yourself with your words or symbols.
Sort of, though I emphasise the right to listen and read, over the
right to speak. Lets say you know that food additive XYZ is real bad
for your health. You aren't as harmed by being blocked from talking
about it as I am. You already can cut it out of your diet, but I
remain ignorant from not hearing you, I continue to ingest it, and I
am harmed.
Bo> Flying a swastica says nothing. It is not an argument, not a
Bo> statement, and no one is harmed, or loses out on understanding a
Bo> contrary point of view, by not being able to see one. Not that I
Bo> necessarily think that ban is right, but its ont a free speech issue
Bo> really.
ji> My point in using that example is that you and I might agree that
ji> it's a bad thing to fly, but what about when 'pop culture' says
ji> that my Christian flag is hate speech to a subset of the
ji> population? I could argue all day long that Jesus is the
ji> oppisite of 'hate speech,' but that won't change someone's
ji> mind.
ji> So the issue becomes, who decides what is free speech/hate
ji> speech?
If one group is wanting another group to remove symbols of expression,
because of "offense", then it may not really actually about speech, or
expression, but about the exercise of political power. It is a
political move to remove an adversary. In the case of the Swastica,
in 1943 it would have been a clear statement to say "they are the
enemy to our nation", and that the restriction is to block an
adverserial out-group. If it were 1943, I would support a law against
flying it. I sympathise with objections to it today, but laws I don't
think are necessary, as that regime is dead and the war was won a long
time ago.
If Christians are being treated in similar ways today, then the root
motive is similar. The symbols are being seen as those of an
adverserial group. Its not really, in my view, a "Free Speech" issue,
but more of one of a group, or groups of people viewing the other
group as being "external" and seeking to remove them, by removing
their expression. "Hate Speech" is just a mushy, vague sentiment used
to blanket-ban and smear anything they don't want discussed. Its a
rhetorical device, a language construct used to sway emotion, not a
descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is
"hate speech".
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
