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…
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.