I’ve seen popular images with characters talking about this recently. Free speech and freeze peech. But what are they? Are they universal? An American concept that only applies to them? Some of us have laws for this, some don’t. Does Freeze peach mean that nobody should use an action to make a punishment for somebody’s spoken words? And you guys, how realistic is this idea, do you think it is practical or more like a fantasy thing to meme about while reality kicks butt on its own. Maybe we should not be jumping in full support of the Liberatus Oratorio.
Hopefully big brain 
discussion below, love to hear your dramatic thoughts⬇️
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Free Speech is a misnomer. Every developed country already puts limits on free speech.
Uttering threats, defamation, making false claims about commercial products, lying under oath, obscenity laws, causing a disturbance, noise complaints, limits on protests, the regulation of radio and television bands, NDAs, gag orders, classified information, harrassment, conspiracy to x, etc. are all actual restrictions on your ability to express yourself.
It's pretty obvious that at least some of these are useful and beneficial, so unless you are a very r-slurred anarchist or lolibertarian, you already support limits on free speech. A society that did not infringe on your right to speak would be awful, unless your dream is to follow women around shouting racial slurs at them and threatening them, in which case advocate for what you want to see I guess.
The actual issues are:
What else, if there is anything else, ought to be regulated? Examples range from limits on political spending and higher standards in advertising, to the current left-liberal trend of attempting to ban all dissent to prevailing liberal views by casting it as discrimination.
What should the punishment be, both socially and legally, for violating existing restrictions on free speech? Again, these range from there should be no punishment for any speech, to demands that people have their lives destroyed and face legal trouble for milquetoast takes like 'immigration bad'.
What actually qualifies as x? Certain categories of unacceptable speech are being expanded by changing the definition of the thing that is verboten. Racism is socially, and in some contexts legally, disallowed. By expanding the definition of racism, the limits imposed by racism being unacceptable become more restrictive.
As a general rule, whichever side of the right/left dichotomy is more prominent in culture will push to allow some things and restrict others.
My view, which is necessarily general and not specific, is that we should have a light a hand as we can manage. I put myself in a hypothetical situation. If my own views on free speech were held by my ideological enemy, what would that mean for me if they took power?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
😴😴😴
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Thank you for this thorough and engaged response.
Hm this is interesting. Maybe I would want to crush my enemy’s frees speech so that they are not able to take over. They cannot take me over if I take power. A light hand is only fair when at the table with friends, with an enemy you must slap, yes?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As soon as you crush your enemy completely your allies will schism. When the Whigs had complete control over Britain they fractured into Liberal and Conservative factions. When the Russian communists defeated the Monarchists the Bolsheviks eliminated the Mensheviks soon after.
Any such system relies on you winning completely, totally, and forever. Its a bad bet that you will defeat your enemies, remain dominant amongst your allies, and win every single battle, never mind the ethics.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context