If you’re really a free speech “absolutist,” then you also support threats of violence, child pornography, and Citizens United.
19 comments
Only a Sith believes in absolutes.
There are always limits on free speech: E.g. you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. Threats of violence and child pornography violate the rights of the victims so can be curtailed. Citizens United was just bad. Corporations are not individuals.
Then I am definitely not an "absolutist" in that respect.
Free speech is like the medical dictum: First, do no harm.
I am a free speech "absolutist".
It can be fucking hard at times, especially given some of the vile and hateful stuff often highlighted on this very site. However, calls for social or state censorship of anything, means that you are willing to allow others to decide what you can and should be allowed to think and, bugger that for a game of soldiers.
That does not mean, however, that I support in any way the ideas, goals, values or arguments expressed.
I can allow your words but abhor and stand against your actions.
Nobody is a free speech “absolutist”. To the list of stuff you can't do and claim "free speech" you can add fraud, counseling someone to commit a crime, perjury, slander, libel, posing as a doctor or lawyer and giving medical or legal advice without the proper licenses, violating copyrights, proselytizing your religious beliefs while acting as an agent of the government, disclosing classified information, violating a gag order or non-disclosure agreement, violating HIPAA medical privacy rules and soliciting a sex act with a minor.
> If you’re really a free speech “absolutist,”
If.
That's true.
Specifically it's distribution. The production of child porn is obviously not speech.
Since the law it overturned only limited what non-profit corporations spend, I fail to see how it's relevant at all to individuals' free speech.
Wonder wonder, I do. As much yours against stuff, as mine against you and yours, it`s a great game where only those of some mental constitution can really play.
ps.Child porn is not "free speech"
Know it`s not really possible in any manageable way or form, but I`d rather have a law of "don`t try to dish out if you can`t take at least as much" than all this "don`t touch me". Guess it wouldn`t be fair for anybody but the most aggresive and constituous but damn, it would make stuff fun!
Also notice that while indeed almost everyone can dish, few can take and laugh.
The first two are illegal, and the fans of Manchester City wished the latter was. [/hyper-sarcasm]
...and what Prager said. b^_^d
I dunno, with the amount of people that cling to "Free Speech" as if it was a shield from criticism, when compared to the amount of people that cling to the Bible, Quran, and Talmud in the same manner, I can legitimately believe this to be a reductio ad absurdium counter-argument to someone.
...But it's not likely.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
