Absolute Free Speech Exists

Demonstrating the fundamental, natural, and absolute right of free speech is as easy as saying something—anything—the heart desires. Not only is every person born with the capacity for language, but also the will and desire to express themselves however they are able. So long as there is life, there is absolute freedom of speech.

Despite this brute fact, free speech absolutists are extremely rare, and their opposites extremely common. This is understandable wherever censors abound. Not only is it a difficult position to maintain—the absolutist will have to defend the right to speak of the vilest people and the ugliest of words, putting him at risk for the laziest attempts of guilt by associations—but also because the urge to censor is like honey to a black bear.

In order to resist the temptation to abandon the absolute position for the cow-patted, green grasses of an unprincipled, indolent and censorial approach to free speech, the absolutist must recognize from the outset that any pooh-poohing of his position is immediately an excuse for some form or other of censorship. We should note that censorship has led to more death and destruction, more repression and tyranny, more lost knowledge, than any instance of letting someone speak.

The entire entry on free speech at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, is one such excuse. In that essay, under the ironic heading “The Boundaries of the Debate”, we are told that free speech absolutism could only ever apply to someone like Robinson Crusoe, alone on some deserted island, far removed from polite society. Once other people are added to the equation, with their laws and limitations, that natural right to absolute free speech necessarily disappears. Free speech, therefor, is a right afforded by some government or authority, and not our makers. No government or authority could ever allow absolute freedom of speech lest it devolve into anarchy, and therefor absolute freedom of speech does not, nor could not exist.

This mirrors the same argument made by the post-modernist Stanley Fish, who, in his influential book “Free Speech Doesn’t Exist”, maintains that there is no such thing as free speech because speech is inherently regulated already. Grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc. already impose the boundaries of what can and cannot be said.

The only thing unbounded by these regulations, apparently, is their penchant for casuistry.

It isn’t because of inherent regulations or because no one is around that governs or limits what an individual can and cannot say. That has always been the realm of personal choice. Even someone threatened with torture and death could say what he wanted in complete defiance of the censor and the so-called "consequences" that people love to blame on the speech and speaker, but never on the censors dishing them out. So long as the speaker can control his motor cortex, can draw breath, is awake, he can express himself how he sees fit.

And all the censor could ever do to challenge the absolutist’s position is to make excuses for censorship, for tyranny, and failing that, to cut out his tongue.

We are conditioned by society over thousands of years to mind the tongue. That is how societies have existed so long. If a person is not programmed one way, they get programmed another way. Most people's beliefs stem from the beliefs of others who influence them, making them social or antisocial in society. A smart person sees this is being done but does not tell others if they are conditioned to believe a certain way but learns to capitalize on the beliefs of others or steer their beliefs to profit off of them. When you go to into certain fields like high ranking government at a good university, you are taught to manipulate the masses by gaining their belief in you or your beliefs, the same thing happens everywhere, even at this site.

I do not profit by my knowledge, I give it to those who want some. I do not look for prestige, in fact I dislike being put up on a pedestal. I would rather just hang around with common everyday people and discuss things and try to hold them back if they start go over the edge.

That is why schools were created with governments running them, they attempt to train the young to fit into society and ready them to go out and work in the workforce. The problem is that schools are messing up because the teachers got polarized in many different ways, one being to convince our young that college will give you better chances at getting ahead. Starting a successful business does not require college but does mean a person needs to know about budgeting and record keeping.

I kind of see myself as a free.speech absolutist. I believe anyone should be able to say anything they want any time they want. Doesn't mean I think it should be free from consequence though. Personally I choose what to say and what not to say based on how it may affect those listening. I choose to try not to be an asshole most of the time. If someone wants to babble of dumbass or hateful # that's fine...doesn't mean I don't support the person that smacks an idiot like that also.

Plus I always prefer to know who the assholes are. It's not like you're changing someone's thoughts by stopping them from speaking. It just means you don't really know what people believe.

a reply to: Propagandalf

Okay you're right of course, even removing someone's tongue wouldnt prevent free speech as they would still have the pen which often reaches farther than our voice. We need to remember that Free Speech isn't free, as it cost us responsibility. I believe also that we must protect free speech, its fundamental in our Country, but just because we say it and it does not relinquish our responsibility for our words.

Along certain lines of belief, I can stand outside my neighbors house with a bull horn and proclaim to all that those whom reside there are child abusers or pedophiles. That's free speech at work right ? No one can stop me from saying it right ? Now of course it's not true, but it's my right to say it but the responsibility that comes with untruths is a deterrent to most, knowing that life would change from the inevitable lawsuit as a result of that free speech.

Along those same lines of belief outlined in the OP, a woman can head to the local police station and make claims of rape against an individual. It's free speech right ? So she can say it, correct ? The allegation is false but it's free speech, right ? It is as she freely made the accusation but would not and should not be protected under the guise of free speech.

It is absolute and it absolutely comes with a responsibility, say anything you wish but he prepared to pay a price if it is speech that results in the price of responsibility. It is really a dumb argument as one can stand on a street corner and shout racial epithets and religious hatred, but the responsibility part comes from getting beat up for it eventually. You can say it and no one can stop you but is the responsibility that comes with it worth it ? That person may go to jail, but in the hospital or the morgue is the responsibility of that free speech.

The same responsibility for the free speech made by the false rape allegation or the false declaration of child abuse is a lawsuit, you can say it but responsibility will come with it and bankruptcy soon follows, but muh free speech. The same can be said of yelling fire in the theater, you can say it, no one can stop you but responsibility when a child is trampled as a result of muh free speech is in some locales a murder charge or manslaughter.

Free Speech is absolute...Responsiblity is also absolute. Free Speech is not free as it has real consequences, real effects. It is how we demonstrate our free speech that determines how much its cost are, responsibility is a high price for most, common sense is cheap and by the way free, just like speech, too bad more of us dont utilize both, so speech will always be free.

a reply to: dug88

That’s one of the important points made by Aryeh Neier, the head of the ACLU, who defended the right of theAmerican Nazi party to stage a rally in a city where many Holocaust survivors then resided. Himself a holocaust survivor, he thought it a matter of life and death because without letting them speak, he had no way of knowing who the Nazis in the room were.

Well said.

a reply to: DJMSN

I don’t like the consequences excuse. If you punch me in the nose because I offend you, that is a consequence of your choice and actions, not mine. If a woman is condemned to death for blasphemy, that is a consequence of the law, not of her words. If you don’t punch me, you would never say that your restraint was a consequence of my words, so why say it of any other type of reaction?

Yes, to me free speech, like all freedoms, comes with responsibility, not because I can or cannot say what I want, but because to do otherwise is to arm the censor with justifications to continue his tyranny.

a reply to: Propagandalf

So if a woman falsely accusing you of rape and you go to jail for life, you are okay with it ? It's free speech right ? To say she is wrong would be an excuse, so you would just accept her false accusation and go to jail ? Let's say you could absolutely refute her charge, would you not want her to be held accountable, responsible for her free speech ?

After all, imagine all the heck as a result of her free speech. Arrest, incarceration, cost of bail if you could get it, the 10 of thousands in lawyer fees, the loss of job, the publicity on television, newspapers, and a lengthy trial but hey...its her right to say it. RESPONSIBILITY...it doesnt prevent free speech, no censor stopped her from voicing her false accusations but all speech comes with responsibility, use Free Speech responsibly and there would be no censors.

Irresponsible Free Speech is what drives censorship, but again no one stops you from whatever you wish to say, censorship comes after speech, using common sense and knowing we will be responsible is enough for most, but stop claiming censorship when no one stops you from saying stupid stuff, its accountability you dont like, as I said Free Speech is not free, if you can't afford the price then keep it to yourself.

a reply to: DJMSN

Would I be ok with being sent to jail for a crime I never committed? No. A false claim is one thing, and easily refuted, but taking that false claim to the police in an attempt to get someone arrested, imprisoned, is a matter of conduct and action, not speech.

I don’t mind there being consequences or even a backlash to free speech, although, not by the Government. I am opposed to censorship and the supression of free speech by anyone or any corporation.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don’t mind there being consequences or even a backlash to free speech, although, not by the Government. I am opposed to censorship and the supression of free speech by anyone or any corporation.

I wouldn’t throw backlash out with the bath-water, A backlash is sometimes necessary.

This is an important point of JS Mill and John Milton. We all benefit from seeing falsity collide with error. In that sense, a backlash to speech or opinions, so long as it consists of competing ideas, refutations, mockery, or what-have-you, might in any case be the correct course of action. In many cases it is usually the backlash being censored, as it was the case in Nazi germany, Soviet Russia, and other times when dissidents were silenced for opposing tyrannical narratives.

a reply to: Propagandalf

As I stated...I support the potential backlash, but not the supression of the right of someone to say what they believe...even if it comes back to bite them in the ass.

a reply to: Propagandalf

Do only humans have ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights', or do you figure those 'rights', are also a part of the animal, vegetable, mineral, and whatever domains?

a reply to: Nothin

Probably, though I haven’t given it much thought. The precondition for rights is that we can argue what they are. Other animals, plants and minerals would have a difficulty with that.

a reply to: Propagandalf

What about when/if, AI argues that it deserves human-rights?

Does a person in a coma have no: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights', then, because per your claimed 'precondition': they couldn't argue?

What is your model, or definition for: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights' ?

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Propagandalf

What about when/if, AI argues that it deserves human-rights?

Does a person in a coma have no: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights', then, because per your claimed 'precondition': they couldn't argue?

What is your model, or definition for: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights' ?

An ai could only assert ai rights.

Natural rights are self-evident. Life, liberty, property.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Propagandalf

What about when/if, AI argues that it deserves human-rights?

Does a person in a coma have no: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights', then, because per your claimed 'precondition': they couldn't argue?

What is your model, or definition for: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights' ?

An ai could only assert ai rights.

Natural rights are self-evident. Life, liberty, property.

Where are these rules to be found?

Do you have any examples of 'natural rights', in nature?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Propagandalf

What about when/if, AI argues that it deserves human-rights?

Does a person in a coma have no: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights', then, because per your claimed 'precondition': they couldn't argue?

What is your model, or definition for: ..."...fundamental, natural, and absolute..."... 'rights' ?

An ai could only assert ai rights.

Natural rights are self-evident. Life, liberty, property.

Where are these rules to be found?

Do you have any examples of 'natural rights', in nature?

Rules? They are not rules.

And no, they are not objects and things to be found in nature.

a reply to: Propagandalf

If: ..."...An ai could only assert ai rights..."..., and ..."...The precondition for rights is that we can argue what they are. Other animals, plants and minerals would have a difficulty with that...."..., are not rules; what would you like to call them, and what is the origin of these supposed 'conditions' ?

So if the: ..."...Natural rights are self-evident. Life, liberty, property..."..., and : ..."...the fundamental, natural, and absolute right of free speech..."... are not to be found in nature, as you say: then what is their domain and origin?