There is not a single country on this planet that has no legal consequences for free speech and it would be ridiculous to claim that should be the standard. For one, and I feel kind of pedantic for pointing this out, but that kind of policy would preclude any obviously consequential statements made in court proceedings, for example pleading “guilty”, lying under oath, and confessing. Less pedantically, even in a version of the US where their so-far mythical conception of free speech was actually achieved, legal consequences are assigned to direct, material threats and attempts to cause panic. You’d be pretty hard pressed to claim these exceptions are unreasonable, and I’d go further to say that malicious attempts to incite hatred against a group should be included in unprotected forms of speech. It already is in many countries.
Maybe The Economist thinks these kinds of exceptions are ineffective but, personally, I enjoy living in a nation where people can’t legally spew hatred at my face because the bible told them my life is wrong. I feel safer knowing that people throwing Nazi salutes during national holidays are prosecuted. I think it’s quite interesting that the Economist feels the need to point the finger at Europe and call for “noisy disagreement” where “people should tolerate one another’s views” when the United States has pursued this exact policy and it has lead to little more than them being one of the leading contemporary examples of how an advanced democracy and economy falls into fascism and mass disenfranchisement.
True, because words have meaning. If I have millions of followers on social media, and I say “Americans have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and all Arabs have a duty to kill Americans”. That is free speech, but i’m inciting people to murder, and that has consequences. Take a look at twitter these days, pure misinformation and blatant racism. This is no longer free speech, this is weaponising words. I know it’s an extremely fine line but have we lost all common sense in the basics of right and wrong?
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.
I actually got that, and that’s why I mentioned common sense. Absolute freedom of speech cannot exisit in a world within most legal frameworks because people cannot be trusted to not act on violent rhetoric. ( January 6’s attack on the US capitol is a prime example of the consequences of that).
But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.
i am free to wave my hands, doing so results in you getting smacked, and that’s assault, therefore I’m not free to wave my hands because we have laws against assault…
If you have legal consequences for speech, you don’t have free speech
There is not a single country on this planet that has no legal consequences for free speech and it would be ridiculous to claim that should be the standard. For one, and I feel kind of pedantic for pointing this out, but that kind of policy would preclude any obviously consequential statements made in court proceedings, for example pleading “guilty”, lying under oath, and confessing. Less pedantically, even in a version of the US where their so-far mythical conception of free speech was actually achieved, legal consequences are assigned to direct, material threats and attempts to cause panic. You’d be pretty hard pressed to claim these exceptions are unreasonable, and I’d go further to say that malicious attempts to incite hatred against a group should be included in unprotected forms of speech. It already is in many countries.
Maybe The Economist thinks these kinds of exceptions are ineffective but, personally, I enjoy living in a nation where people can’t legally spew hatred at my face because the bible told them my life is wrong. I feel safer knowing that people throwing Nazi salutes during national holidays are prosecuted. I think it’s quite interesting that the Economist feels the need to point the finger at Europe and call for “noisy disagreement” where “people should tolerate one another’s views” when the United States has pursued this exact policy and it has lead to little more than them being one of the leading contemporary examples of how an advanced democracy and economy falls into fascism and mass disenfranchisement.
True, because words have meaning. If I have millions of followers on social media, and I say “Americans have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and all Arabs have a duty to kill Americans”. That is free speech, but i’m inciting people to murder, and that has consequences. Take a look at twitter these days, pure misinformation and blatant racism. This is no longer free speech, this is weaponising words. I know it’s an extremely fine line but have we lost all common sense in the basics of right and wrong?
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.
I actually got that, and that’s why I mentioned common sense. Absolute freedom of speech cannot exisit in a world within most legal frameworks because people cannot be trusted to not act on violent rhetoric. ( January 6’s attack on the US capitol is a prime example of the consequences of that).
But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.
Sure people act violently, it’s in our nature, but when a “revered” figure calls for violence, it’s more than likely many more people will act on it.
i am free to wave my hands, doing so results in you getting smacked, and that’s assault, therefore I’m not free to wave my hands because we have laws against assault…
I cannot believe the government bans hand waving.
That’s called “freeze peach” because “free speech” has always been subject to lawful restrictions.