Whenever I feel that my freedom of expression is being infringed upon, it's usually because my hazy thoughts are unable to get around the tyranny of grammar and syntax.
My poor writing skills oppress me more than other humans.
The strongest case I can see from an Anglo-liberal position is close to what Mill set out. Speech is "free" in the sense of not being bullied, coerced, or otherwise distorted. Your countryman Habermas had similar ideas.
You're free within those boundaries, which is not, and never was, "absolute" freedom, because that freedom supposes a minimal core of rational agreements.
The flaw, in both, is what you point out. The lack of coercion and distortion of expression is not an absolute come-what-may truth, but also bound to a culture with its own preferential beliefs and norms.
About the best you can get is a provisional and fallible position, which we know will change with time, but which represents a best-we-can-do position given where we are and what we have at hand.
I see no justification for inhibiting free speech. For someone to say they may do something illegal, it is not the act of doing it, which then would be the crime. What is happening is a thought is being criminalized. It is these parameters that are incrementally being added that are destroying our freedom. There is no mild form of censorship. Stopping debate will not lead to the best resolution.
My take is not really the marketplace of ideas, although it does make sense to me. I am more along the lines of the Anglo-Saxon idea of everything is permissible unless explicitly verboten.
That of course still leaves the door open to censor. But as you mention this is probably inevitable. Someone will always be able to define something as hate speech or equivalent.
I would like to see more emphasis on the everything is permissible approach. Then work on practical measures. These would be ensuring anonymity remains available, and locales or domains where people can at least provide a forum where the authorities won't remove it.
I didn't read this when I first saw it, only at the recommendation of the Librarian of Celaeno. I though based on your headline that you were making an argument that there is no possibility of free speech.
I agree, even if most people don't really practice it, I think it should be available to all.
The boundaries of "free speech" are in themselves part of free speech. Also, "free speech" is only from the government or forced by a clique on others. So, even the defenders of free speech would agree that the norms of "reality" (whatever that is) apply.
Whenever I feel that my freedom of expression is being infringed upon, it's usually because my hazy thoughts are unable to get around the tyranny of grammar and syntax.
My poor writing skills oppress me more than other humans.
The strongest case I can see from an Anglo-liberal position is close to what Mill set out. Speech is "free" in the sense of not being bullied, coerced, or otherwise distorted. Your countryman Habermas had similar ideas.
You're free within those boundaries, which is not, and never was, "absolute" freedom, because that freedom supposes a minimal core of rational agreements.
The flaw, in both, is what you point out. The lack of coercion and distortion of expression is not an absolute come-what-may truth, but also bound to a culture with its own preferential beliefs and norms.
About the best you can get is a provisional and fallible position, which we know will change with time, but which represents a best-we-can-do position given where we are and what we have at hand.
I see no justification for inhibiting free speech. For someone to say they may do something illegal, it is not the act of doing it, which then would be the crime. What is happening is a thought is being criminalized. It is these parameters that are incrementally being added that are destroying our freedom. There is no mild form of censorship. Stopping debate will not lead to the best resolution.
We are living under the tyranny of rationalism.
My take is not really the marketplace of ideas, although it does make sense to me. I am more along the lines of the Anglo-Saxon idea of everything is permissible unless explicitly verboten.
That of course still leaves the door open to censor. But as you mention this is probably inevitable. Someone will always be able to define something as hate speech or equivalent.
I would like to see more emphasis on the everything is permissible approach. Then work on practical measures. These would be ensuring anonymity remains available, and locales or domains where people can at least provide a forum where the authorities won't remove it.
I didn't read this when I first saw it, only at the recommendation of the Librarian of Celaeno. I though based on your headline that you were making an argument that there is no possibility of free speech.
I agree, even if most people don't really practice it, I think it should be available to all.
The boundaries of "free speech" are in themselves part of free speech. Also, "free speech" is only from the government or forced by a clique on others. So, even the defenders of free speech would agree that the norms of "reality" (whatever that is) apply.