So, Benquo seems to be debating me on the free speech issue mentioned in my journal below. I'll begin by quoting his response in full, and then address it point by point.

He writes:

Okay, here we go.

I believe in absolute freedom of speech.

I also agree that in the abuses MotJuste describes, people should be punished?

I can believe these two things because free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want. Other laws still apply.

It should be understood that free speech means freedom from government interference with speech. Obviously, owners of private property may make institute whatever rules they wish on their property.

Moreover, this does not empower people to say things that would otherwise be beyond their ability. Mutes and illiterates still have freedom of speech.

Finally, and crucially, freedom of speech does not affect laws with the accidental effect of supressing speech. A man who has been executed by the state for multiple murders can no longer speak. Yet this execution is not a violation of his right to freedom of speech. Why? Because speech was never the issue.

So when a constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, or freedom from governement laws infringing on freedom of speech, what it means is not that speech will not be impeded, but speech will never be punished as speech. You cannot simply ban a viewpoint. "Because I say so" ceases to be a justification. As a certain American lawyer argued against the Crown shortly before the revolution, truth is a defense against accusations of libel.

Freedom of speech does not conflict with laws against fraud -- you would be allowed to say those things, provided you were not being fraudulent about it too.

Freedom of speech does not conflict with laws against incitement to violence. The state is punishing the will to perform a violent act. In no way is this morally different from punishing physically attempted murder.

Violations of privacy are violations of property, or at least something strongly analogous to property.

The qualification "when no one's rights are violated" is a good sentiment, but at least in understanding the meaning of laws, the identity and extent of rights is bound to be highly controversial when you get down to more complicated specifics.

I'll now respond:

1.

I believe in absolute freedom of speech.

I'd like to note here that absolute is defined as:

Perfect in quality or nature; complete
Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
Unqualified in extent or degree; total
Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions
Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.

Absolute freedom of speech, therefore, is freedom of speech that is complete, total, not limited by any restriction, exception, qualification, or in any degree, is unconstrained by other provisions, and is not to be doubted.

I'd love to just stop right there and call that my rebuttal, because in my opinion it speaks for itself. However, I suspect that Benquo, even despite his italics, was not taking all of the above into account. So I wont be that mean and, instead, ask him (and/or anyone reading this) to please keep in mind the implications of any part of that definition while considering my arguements below.

2.

I can believe these two things because free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want. Other laws still apply.

That's a contradiction, and again, it's tempting to just stop there. See point 1. However, I believe that this is what Benquo is trying to prove, so declaring his thesis statement false and leaving it at that would be ill-mannered of me.

Absolute freedom of speech, however, does indeed mean that you can say whatever you want. It doesn't necessarily negate other laws (whether or not it trumps them is debatable) but it does mean that no law may be created or upheld which might violate or curb the freedom of speech.

3.

It should be understood that free speech means freedom from government interference with speech. Obviously, owners of private property may make institute whatever rules they wish on their property.

Freedom of speech, especially your 'absolute' freedom of speech, does indeed mean freedom from government interference. Of any kind.

However, owners of private property may not institute whatever rules they wish on their property: they may not violate a federal or state law on their property, despite whatever they may decree is acceptable on said property. Removing an individual's freedom of speech is a violation of a federal law. Point moot, though; not only can the property owner not legally do this, they are not capable of doing it either. They can remove someone from their property for any reason at all, but this does not violate or curb that person's freedom of speech, even if speech is the reason for his or her removal. They are still free to speak, but they are not free to remain on the property owner's property. It's an important distinction.

4.

Moreover, this does not empower people to say things that would otherwise be beyond their ability. Mutes and illiterates still have freedom of speech.

Finally, and crucially, freedom of speech does not affect laws with the accidental effect of supressing speech. A man who has been executed by the state for multiple murders can no longer speak. Yet this execution is not a violation of his right to freedom of speech. Why? Because speech was never the issue.

The above all seems both obvious and irrelevent. How do they support the point of your beleif in absolute speech, or the statement that "free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want"? Unless your point is 'you can't say what you want if you're mute/dead' which, duh. You also cannot say what you want if you're too stupid to express it, or don't know the language you wish to speak in, or are unconcious, or are a potted plant, etc. Irrelevent.

5.

So when a constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, or freedom from governement laws infringing on freedom of speech, what it means is not that speech will not be impeded, but speech will never be punished as speech.

Is this a universal definition of which I am not aware? It isn't proven or supported anywhere in your arguement. Absolute freedom of speech does indeed mean that speech will not be impeded by any government law or action.

6.

Freedom of speech does not conflict with laws against fraud -- you would be allowed to say those things, provided you were not being fraudulent about it too.

Incorrect. It is the speech that is being punished because it is fradulent. Fraud in the abstract is not illegal or punishable by law, just as having fraudulent thoughts is not illegal or punishable by law. It is the action, specifically speech, that is being punished.

Absolute free speech is speech that is not limited.
Limiting any kind of speech is imposing a limit on speech.
Fraudulent speech is a kind of speech.
Limiting fraudulent speech is imposing a limit on speech.
Speech that is limited is not speech that is absolutely free.

If speech is to be absolutely free, fraudulent speech must not be limited.

7.

Freedom of speech does not conflict with laws against incitement to violence. The state is punishing the will to perform a violent act. In no way is this morally different from punishing physically attempted murder.

This is the same kind of proof as above. The will to perform a violent act is not punishable by law. It is the physical action taken-- speech-- that is punished. Speech which is an incitement to violence is a kind of speech and therefore if it is limited, speech is not absolutely free.

The will to perform a violent act is morally different from the actual performance of the act. Hugely. It's the difference between thought and action, intention and deed. Speech is an action, and it is only action that can be punished. Therefore, speech is being punished.

8.

Violations of privacy are violations of property, or at least something strongly analogous to property.

Privacy is not the same as property. And one thing being 'strongly analoguous' to another does not mean that the protections of one apply to the other.

9.

The qualification "when no one's rights are violated" is a good sentiment, but at least in understanding the meaning of laws, the identity and extent of rights is bound to be highly controversial when you get down to more complicated specifics.

A rhetorically pleasing close, but the issue of violation of individual rights as permitted by absolutely free speech was not addressed here. Shame: I'd be interested.

If you wish to write on that topic, I'll be completely fascinated. If you wish to respond to this, I'll be interested, but I probably wont go through it like this again. It's really exhausting as a processs.

And thanks again for taking the time to respond to my post!