Why free speech should be absolute

[wormwood]

[Mathurin]

[exploited]

"Free speech should be absolute" to "Free speech zones are cool."

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

His argument is completely and utterly destroyed. You can't say you support absolute freedom of speech, and then say that the government should be able to tell you when and where you can exercise that right. You can't say you support absolute free speech and then go ahead and approve of just about all the limitations put on that right. Probably one of the worst shoot-yourself-in-the-foot threads I've ever seen.

[Mathurin]

[Mathurin]

[The Dharma Bum]

It's speech. You propose a reason that it should be limited thus contradicting the idea of absolute freedom of speech.

Therefore case closed.

[exploited]

Free speech should be absolute, unless it incites violence, is untruthful, or takes place outside of designated, government-approved zones.

[Mathurin]

Speech is the expression of ideas, the 1st ammendment specifically protects political, religious, and artistic speech.
All the noises that come out of your mouth are not speech.

Lies are not speech, thus, falsely shouting fire in a theatre is not speech, blocking traffic is not speech.

Harrassment is not speech, thus blocking entry and otherwise preventing access to a legitimate venue, especially a political venue, is not speech. In fact its a crime against speech. In effect this is yet another protection against mob rule.

Directly inciting violence is not expressing ideas, we consider it one step below actually committing violence. Free speech is about the expression of ideas, if your ideas require direct incitement to violence in a democratic state, you should probably rethink them.


In the link I posted Ukraine is considering banning the spreading of an idea, using the same "right" that other european nation have used to ban hate speech, a right to not be offended. This is wrong.