China, France, Russia, the UK and the US said that a nuclear war "cannot be won and must never be fought," quoting Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at what became the zenith of the nuclear arms race.
On the grounds that certain speech is harmful to society. The reality is that no country has absolute freedom of speech. Calls for violence are illegal in most places, Germany bans glorification of fascism, and so on.
So, it’s not a binary question of whether freedom of speech is allowed or not, but rather what the right balance is. I don’t know on what basis westerners assume that they got this balance fundamentally right while everyone else got it wrong.
Perestroyka literally translates are restructuring. And the connection to privatization is that perestroyka was used to popularize the idea of shifting away from a purely socialist economy.
The reality is that no country has absolute freedom of speech.
I reside in one. Even state secrets… prior restraint orders get thrown out of court on appeal.
Calls for violence are illegal
Yes, but the speech is incidental to the crime there.
Germany bans glorification of fascism
They certainly do. And look where it’s got them. For 70 years they’ve had jackasses mooning for those symbols and words, just for the taboo appeal. The trouble being that these cosplayers soon morph into actual neo-nazis.
So, it’s not a binary question of whether freedom of speech is allowed or not, but rather what the right balance is.
Philosophically, it really is a binary thing. If you’re mulling over the “what’s the balance”… you no longer have free speech. You’re just trying to decide if you’ve missed any categories of disallowed speech with the implication that you’re only allowing that speech which you like. And that’s not “free speech” at all. No humans in any era or any country have ever needed freedom of speech to protect speech which those in authority already agree with.
I reside in one. Even state secrets… prior restraint orders get thrown out of court on appeal.
You don’t, your country has limits on acceptable speech just like every other.
Yes, but the speech is incidental to the crime there.
It’s not incidental at all. There are things you’re not allowed to say legally.
They certainly do. And look where it’s got them. For 70 years they’ve had jackasses mooning for those symbols and words, just for the taboo appeal. The trouble being that these cosplayers soon morph into actual neo-nazis.
Certainly, better than where US got itself into right now.
Philosophically, it really is a binary thing. If you’re mulling over the “what’s the balance”… you no longer have free speech.
Nobody has absolute free speech, nor is there any indication that this is a desirable thing to have.
Instigating violence is a crime. The speech is incidental. If you could dance a jig that was guaranteed to start a riot, you’d be prosecuted for that even if you dance silently.
That’s not a free speech issue. We’re talking about people speaking, writing, communicating, and so forth. And you’re saying that even that sometimes shouldn’t be allowed. Just trying to make sure I understand that correctly.
The people whose politics you despise, the ones in power right now, using your own principles, they would be in the right to prohibit, prevent, and even punish you for proselytizing socialism. Essentially, they could shut you down with the same tactics you’d use yourself given the opportunity.
Instigating violence is a crime. The speech is incidental. If you could dance a jig that was guaranteed to start a riot, you’d be prosecuted for that even if you dance silently.
Exact same argument applies to anything that’s deemed to be a crime. Any speech that’s disallowed is done on the basis that it’s a crime. Using your logic no countries limit free speech, they’re just limiting crimes and free speech is completely incidental.
Any speech that’s disallowed is done on the basis that it’s a crime.
In sane places, sure. In some more tyrannical places, the speech itself is the crime. “You’ve insulted the king!” or “The commissar deems your criticisms of the government to be sedition!” and so on.
There’s no fraud in those things. No violence occurred (or would ever have occurred due to the speech in any plausible circumstances). No plausible harm occurred… unless you worry that when other people think things you don’t want them to think that this is harm.
On the grounds that certain speech is harmful to society. The reality is that no country has absolute freedom of speech. Calls for violence are illegal in most places, Germany bans glorification of fascism, and so on.
So, it’s not a binary question of whether freedom of speech is allowed or not, but rather what the right balance is. I don’t know on what basis westerners assume that they got this balance fundamentally right while everyone else got it wrong.
Perestroyka literally translates are restructuring. And the connection to privatization is that perestroyka was used to popularize the idea of shifting away from a purely socialist economy.
I reside in one. Even state secrets… prior restraint orders get thrown out of court on appeal.
Yes, but the speech is incidental to the crime there.
They certainly do. And look where it’s got them. For 70 years they’ve had jackasses mooning for those symbols and words, just for the taboo appeal. The trouble being that these cosplayers soon morph into actual neo-nazis.
Philosophically, it really is a binary thing. If you’re mulling over the “what’s the balance”… you no longer have free speech. You’re just trying to decide if you’ve missed any categories of disallowed speech with the implication that you’re only allowing that speech which you like. And that’s not “free speech” at all. No humans in any era or any country have ever needed freedom of speech to protect speech which those in authority already agree with.
You don’t, your country has limits on acceptable speech just like every other.
It’s not incidental at all. There are things you’re not allowed to say legally.
Certainly, better than where US got itself into right now.
Nobody has absolute free speech, nor is there any indication that this is a desirable thing to have.
I’m not entirely sure what you think those limits are. What is it that you think I can’t say without risk of criminal sanction?
I just gave you an example. I assume you’re an American, so riddle me what you think your government is trying to prosecute Assange for right now?
Instigating violence is a crime. The speech is incidental. If you could dance a jig that was guaranteed to start a riot, you’d be prosecuted for that even if you dance silently.
That’s not a free speech issue. We’re talking about people speaking, writing, communicating, and so forth. And you’re saying that even that sometimes shouldn’t be allowed. Just trying to make sure I understand that correctly.
The people whose politics you despise, the ones in power right now, using your own principles, they would be in the right to prohibit, prevent, and even punish you for proselytizing socialism. Essentially, they could shut you down with the same tactics you’d use yourself given the opportunity.
Exact same argument applies to anything that’s deemed to be a crime. Any speech that’s disallowed is done on the basis that it’s a crime. Using your logic no countries limit free speech, they’re just limiting crimes and free speech is completely incidental.
In sane places, sure. In some more tyrannical places, the speech itself is the crime. “You’ve insulted the king!” or “The commissar deems your criticisms of the government to be sedition!” and so on.
There’s no fraud in those things. No violence occurred (or would ever have occurred due to the speech in any plausible circumstances). No plausible harm occurred… unless you worry that when other people think things you don’t want them to think that this is harm.
None of that is a counter argument to the point I made.
Where is that supposed to be?
So you aren’t free to speak what you think‽
I think you’re have the causality the wrong way around here.