Author Topic: Freedom of Speech  (Read 210 times)

guest55

  • Guest
Freedom of Speech
« on: August 20, 2021, 09:55:54 pm »
Decided to finally create a thread about this topic because I keep seeing Westerners talk about it online, and especially in regards to Cancel Culture. It's getting really annoying as it seems most Westerners do not even understand the simplicest of concepts when it comes to "freedom of speech". This is the logic I use to try and figure out if in fact someone's speech has been banned or curtailed:

I picture a person standing on a box with a blow horn in his hand speaking to a crowd similar to this picture:


1. If I take the person's soap box away, have I curtailed their speech? No, I have not. The person can still say whatever they wish and to whomever will listen.
2. If I take the person's megaphone away, have I curtailed their speech? No, I have not. The person can still say whatever they wish and to whomever will listen, they will just have to use more energy to do so.
3. If I take the person's crowd away (cancel culture), have I banned their speech? No, I have not. The person can still say whatever they wish, it's just that no one is listening anymore.
4. If I hold the person down and staple their lip's shut, have I banned their speech? No, I have only limited it. If the person still has both hands they can write, type, and perform sign language.
5. If I throw a person in prison for something they said and banned them from speaking or writing to anyone, have I banned their speech? Yes!
6. If I kill someone for something they said, have I banned their speech? Yes, I have!

I think a lot of human-beings these days confuse 'freedom of speech' with the 'I deserve to be heard' belief. I suspect if you asked most of these people why they feel like they deserve to be heard most of them would say something along the lines of, "because I'm a human-being and all people deserve to be heard!". That's about the gist of it all I think in regards to this topic, no?

I believe that most people's feeling of entitlement regarding speech these days stems from social media and the egalitarianism that it promotes.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7383
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom of Speech
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2021, 10:27:19 pm »
"1. If I take the person's soap box away, have I curtailed their speech? No, I have not. The person can still say whatever they wish and to whomever will listen.
2. If I take the person's megaphone away, have I curtailed their speech? No, I have not. The person can still say whatever they wish and to whomever will listen.
3. If I take the person's crowd away (cancel culture), have I banned their speech? No, I have not. The person can still say whatever they wish, it's just that no one is listening anymore."

This formulation is confusing. Whose property is the soapbox/megaphone? In the case of social media platforms, it belongs to the business which lends it out, hence they can stop lending it to whomever they want whenever they want. But your wording above makes it sound like the speaker owns the soapbox/megaphone.

I understand Cancel Culture to mean taking away the soapbox/megaphone (owned by the business). I'm not sure what you mean by taking away the crowd separate from taking away the soapbox/megaphone. How? By kidnapping them? This just adds more confusion.

"4. If I hold the person down and staple their lip's shut, have I banned their speech? No, I have only limited it. If the person still has both hands they can write, type, and perform sign language."

This is also a confusing example.

"5. If I throw a person in prison for something they said and banned them from speaking or writing to anyone, have I banned their speech? Yes!
6. If I kill someone for something they said, have I banned their speech? Yes, I have!"

There is a difference between imprisoning or executing them in the middle of their speech so as to prevent them from finishing their speech, and imprisoning/executing them after they have finished their speech as consequences for its content. The former was despised in the ancient world, as it suggests fear of what might be said. The latter is part of statism in the ancient world. The monarch has a duty to hear anyone who wishes to speak; the speaker has a duty to show willingness to die for their cause. In some cases, even when the monarch does not request death but merely is unpersuaded by the speech, the speaker would commit suicide anyway in order to show conviction to their issue they just spoke about. This system thus automatically filters out trolls and other non-serious speakers, a feature that is utterly lacking today, hence leading to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGYQtuQsd4Q

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of Speech
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2021, 10:36:35 pm »
Quote
This formulation is confusing. Whose property is the soapbox/megaphone? In the case of social media platforms, it belongs to the business which lends it out, hence they can stop lending it to whomever they want whenever they want. But your wording above makes it sound like the speaker owns the soapbox/megaphone.

I must have updated my post just as you posted. Yes, I'm referring primarily to social media. I'll make the rest a little clearer as well.

Quote
I understand Cancel Culture to mean taking away the soapbox/megaphone (owned by the business). I'm not sure what you mean by taking away the crowd separate from taking away the soapbox/megaphone. How? By kidnapping them? This just adds more confusion.

In way of a successful boycott campaign on social media primarily, but would also work in real life.

Quote
There is a difference between imprisoning or executing them in the middle of their speech so as to prevent them from finishing their speech, and imprisoning/executing them after they have finished their speech as consequences for its content. The former was despised in the ancient world, as it suggests fear of what might be said. The latter is part of statism in the ancient world. The monarch has a duty to hear anyone who wishes to speak; the speaker has a duty to show willingness to die for their cause. In some cases, even when the monarch does not request death but merely is unpersuaded by the speech, the speaker would commit suicide anyway in order to show conviction to their issue they just spoke about. This system thus automatically filters out trolls and other non-serious speakers, a feature that is utterly lacking today, hence leading to:


Excellent point! Had not even considered that and I should have such a long time ago. This also proves that not all people are equal, or could ever be! Great argument against the egalitarianism of social media as well.

On second thought I won't update my first post since your response is so on point.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7383
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7383
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile