Will Torbald Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 dsayers is a True Believer in his particular brand of ancap logic. Anyone who disagrees with him on anything--or even just phrases statements in a manner not to his liking--must be anti-free-society, illogical, etc.. Yeah, I think I can agree with that description. I'm not even saying "don't have a free society without government", I'm saying that if you do, you'll see your free speech even more limited than what you have with a consitutional government. If that's what you want, suit yourself.
dsayers Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 dsayers is a True Believer in his particular brand of ancap logic. Anyone who disagrees with him on anything--or even just phrases statements in a manner not to his liking--must be anti-free-society, illogical, etc.. As if logic comes in flavors. As if belief has any bearing on what is true. As if speaking the truth is speaking "to my liking." Donna, when you make objective claims, YOU are saying that truth is preferable to falsehood. Though vague and not arguments, for those interested in what Donna is referring to, you can check out a fine example in his most recent thread where he asks me to jettison rationality to just accept what he's saying.
LandoRamone30 Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 My understanding of free speech might be different than yours. I'll quote the first amendment to the United States Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances." When I ask for explanations of free speech, what I get is speech is free, but in some instances limited. For example, you can't threaten to harm someone or yell fire in a theater when really there was no fire. You can't slander someone. In reality you can do these things, just that doing them have negative social consequences. I'm not exactly sure what are you trying to say when you say free speech is a government program. I think the constitution is pretty clear, but the application of the constitution is left up to people and the people that work in governments pretty much do as they please. Who really is going to challenge there interpretation of the constitution or challenge the acts of congress? If left up to Marxist, I can see how there central planning can restrict speech or inconsistently apply free speech.
LandoRamone30 Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 This is the first time I have read rights being negatives against government while positives are powers. Where does this information come from?
shirgall Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 This is the first time I have read rights being negatives against government while positives are powers. Where does this information come from? At the risk of making this a western-focused (if not US-focused) diatribe, the basic idea is that rights belong to individuals, not to groups, therefore rights are a negative against governments, societies, and communities. The principles go back to Locke about how rights are not granted but inherent in an individual's existence (natural rights). There is a construction where states have "rights" in the sense that the ninth and tenth amendments (explicitly in the tenth) state that rights not specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution are protected, but that the States have more leeway in determining them. The picture is muddied somewhat by the fourteenth amendment, as this phrase does not say rights but uses a different construction: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This has, nonetheless, been interpreted as all enumerated rights under the Constitution are also applied to state governments, with variations on a really annoying legal concept of "scrutiny". Powers are specifically granted (delegated) to governments and organizations (and their members) by charter and laws. They positive in that they are explicitly given to the state. What is special about these abilities is that while they are delegated they do not actually have any validity or protection for individuals. Try coining money or enforcing a bench warrant on your own some time. It won't be fun. In between the positives and negatives (government may do x, government may no infringe y) is a vast landscape of areas where governments and people do stuff that neither carries the force of law nor the explicit protection of a right. Such activities can be "unlawful" (not explicitly permitted by law) but not "illegal". One should always been on the lookout for legislation or policies that only protect "lawful" activities, for example, like Net Neutrality (because it only protects lawful Internet traffic). John Locke, Ayn Rand, Frederic Bastiat, and many more are good sources for this kind of discussion. My understanding of free speech might be different than yours. I'll quote the first amendment to the United States Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances." When I ask for explanations of free speech, what I get is speech is free, but in some instances limited. For example, you can't threaten to harm someone or yell fire in a theater when really there was no fire. You can't slander someone. In reality you can do these things, just that doing them have negative social consequences. I'm not exactly sure what are you trying to say when you say free speech is a government program. I think the constitution is pretty clear, but the application of the constitution is left up to people and the people that work in governments pretty much do as they please. Who really is going to challenge there interpretation of the constitution or challenge the acts of congress? If left up to Marxist, I can see how there central planning can restrict speech or inconsistently apply free speech. In general, the principle is that inoffensive speech does not need protection, but that completely disruptive or injurious speech can be regulated. When it comes to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, you are free to do so, but if substantial disruption or injury results, you are liable for it if there was no fire. This is not a infringement of free speech. When it comes to "slander" you can say anything you want about someone else, but if you damage their reputation, you are on the hook for making what's known as a "positive defense": that yes you said something that hurt someone but it was the truth. The burden of proof shifts to you, but this is not still not an infringement of free speech. The difference between these and other forms of speech is injury. There have been efforts to extend this (PC stuff) but in the past the big infringements were things like the Sedition Acts, What gets more interesting is stuff like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District where the Supreme Court ruled that students have the right to express themselves but it must be balanced with the school's need to "maintain order" to meet its duty to educate. And, of course, there's been some bitter fights over prayer in school because the alleged injury of peer pressure to practice a religion on individuals too young to consent to such practices. I should add that I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and it's been a long time since I played a lawyer on TV.
Will Torbald Posted July 27, 2016 Author Posted July 27, 2016 I'm not exactly sure what are you trying to say when you say free speech is a government program. A society without any protection of free speech will inevitably devolve into mob rule. The mob will censor, the mob will pressure media, the mob will segregate dissent. The result is tribal division. When you become an isolated tribe, your speech only echoes from one person to the other. A government that creates common ground, public forums, prevents censorship from utility communications like telephone lines, etc - is what allows effective debate between different ideological tribes possible. Does your free speech matter if only people who agree with you hear it? I don't think it does.
Recommended Posts