Message Her

Join OkCupid

Find better matches with our advanced matching system

An image of MotJuste
An image of MotJuste
—% Match —% Friend —% Enemy

MotJuste

20 / F / straight / Seeing someone

Los Angeles, California

Her journal posts

Freedom of Speech

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!
So, Benquo seems to be debating me on the free speech issuementioned in my journal below. I'll begin by quoting his responsein 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 shouldbe punished?

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

It should be understood that free speech means freedom fromgovernment interference with speech. Obviously, owners of privateproperty may make institute whatever rules they wish on theirproperty.

Moreover, this does not empower people to say things that wouldotherwise be beyond their ability. Mutes and illiterates still havefreedom of speech.

Finally, and crucially, freedom of speech does not affect laws withthe accidental effect of supressing speech. A man who hasbeen executed by the state for multiple murders can no longerspeak. Yet this execution is not a violation of his right tofreedom 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 speechwill never be punished as speech. You cannot simply ban aviewpoint. "Because I say so" ceases to be a justification. As acertain American lawyer argued against the Crown shortly before therevolution, truth is a defense against accusations oflibel.

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

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

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

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


I'll now respond:

1.
I believe in absolute freedom ofspeech.


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

Perfect in quality or nature; complete
Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolutetrust.
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 iscomplete, total, not limited by any restriction, exception,qualification, or in any degree, is unconstrained by otherprovisions, 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 thatBenquo, even despite his italics, was not taking all of the aboveinto account. So I wont be that mean and, instead, ask him (and/oranyone reading this) to please keep in mind the implications ofany part of that definition while considering my arguementsbelow.

2.
I can believe these two things because free speechdoes not mean you can say whatever you want. Other laws stillapply.


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

Absolute freedom of speech, however, does indeed mean that you cansay whatever you want. It doesn't necessarily negate other laws(whether or not it trumps them is debatable) but it does mean thatno law may be created or upheld which might violate or curb thefreedom of speech.

3.
It should be understood that free speech means freedomfrom government interference with speech. Obviously, owners ofprivate property may make institute whatever rules they wish ontheir property.


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

However, owners of private property may not institutewhatever rules they wish on their property: they may not violate afederal or state law on their property, despite whatever they maydecree is acceptable on said property. Removing an individual'sfreedom of speech is a violation of a federal law. Point moot,though; not only can the property owner not legally do this, theyare not capable of doing it either. They can remove someonefrom their property for any reason at all, but this does notviolate or curb that person's freedom of speech, even if speech isthe 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 thingsthat would otherwise be beyond their ability. Mutes and illiteratesstill have freedom of speech.

Finally, and crucially, freedom of speech does not affect laws withthe accidental effect of supressing speech. A man who hasbeen executed by the state for multiple murders can no longerspeak. Yet this execution is not a violation of his right tofreedom of speech. Why? Because speech was never theissue.


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

5.
So when a constitution guarantees the right to freedomof speech, or freedom from governement laws infringing on freedomof 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'tproven or supported anywhere in your arguement. Absolute freedom ofspeech does indeed mean that speech will not be impeded by anygovernment law or action.

6.
Freedom of speech does not conflict with laws againstfraud -- you would be allowed to say those things, provided youwere not being fraudulent about it too.


Incorrect. It is the speech that is being punished because it isfradulent. Fraud in the abstract is not illegal or punishableby law, just as having fraudulent thoughts is not illegal orpunishable by law. It is the action, specifically speech, that isbeing 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 belimited.

7.
Freedom of speech does not conflict with laws againstincitement to violence. The state is punishing the will to performa violent act. In no way is this morally different from punishingphysically attempted murder.


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

The will to perform a violent act is morally different from theactual performance of the act. Hugely. It's the difference betweenthought and action, intention and deed. Speech is an action, and itis only action that can be punished. Therefore, speech is beingpunished.

8.
Violations of privacy are violations of property, or atleast something strongly analogous to property.


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

9.
The qualification "when no one's rights are violated"is a good sentiment, but at least in understanding the meaning oflaws, the identity and extent of rights is bound to be highlycontroversial when you get down to more complicatedspecifics.


A rhetorically pleasing close, but the issue of violation ofindividual rights as permitted by absolutely free speech was notaddressed 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 probablywont go through it like this again. It's really exhausting as aprocesss.

And thanks again for taking the time to respond to my post!
Freedom of Speech
Default user image Simply: Those who believe in censorship, should just shut up now and quit abusing the rest of us with their detestable opinions. While, those who believe in the guarantees of the First Amendment, may continue to express their opinions, as is their right.

A former user commented on

Default user image This is getting to be fun. I've got another response up on my journal now.

A former user commented on

Default user image Shes beautiful, isnt she?

A former user commented on

An image of sexyscottieboy I have to say, I think "Support Censorship" is just a big fat worm at the end of a very pretty, blonde hook. The post is more about censoring ridiculousness and dangerous information than about broad censorship. There are logical flaws in the ensuing argument, but really, it's hard to support "absolute" freedom of anything. I think Libby just enjoys faux fires and arguing :-P

sexyscottieboy commented on

An image of MotJuste Ah, sexyscottieboy, you caught me! Sort of. I don't like arguing, but I do like debating-- a little. I like writing debate-style arguements on topics until I get bored with the topic which, I'm now bored with this one. The beliefs expressed in my censorship post below really are what I think, though-- I wasn't making them up for controversy. And of /course/ I don't actually /enjoy/ fake fires. They're completely tacky. Really, what do you take me for? *wink*

MotJuste commented on

An image of sexyscottieboy Don't get me wrong, I do believe that your post contains your genuine opinion. I also believe that you enjoy creating a bit of chaos. Oh, and obviously, this means that you're completely tacky. ^_^

sexyscottieboy commented on

Default user image We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it

A former user commented on

An image of WTFisThisSite You're ADD but you wrote this??? Or maybe even more impressive.... you READ it. damn...

WTFisThisSite commented on

Default user image I just wrote about this in my journal
I didn't think I had much to say on this topic, but on reflection, I do. Here goes: About a century...

A former user commented on

An image of Cluracan13 I just wrote about this in my journal

Cluracan13 commented on

An image of Cluracan13 Dammit. I have a response to your post, but I'm not sure if it's too long. It won't let me post it here. If you could kindly go to my journal and let me know what you think. I think this is great topic because it's always coming up. Thanks.

Cluracan13 commented on