Quote:
Originally Posted by areo16
It seems you live in Germany. So, you are in favor of a limited freedom of speech. Which wouldn't be freedom of speech, because it is controls in some shape or form. It would be "limited freedom of speech", which isn't "freedom of speech" in the general sense of the words. It seems you feel freedom of speech should take the bench to the propagation of terror.
In most places propogation of terror is illegal anyhow. This could be considered a threat, which is a crime here in the states. So why limit the freedom of speech if the propagation of terror and the acts the Nazis did are illegal anyhow? What about the display of the swastika for educational purposes, or peaceful purposes? I realize this might be hard to grasps considering that the incidents occurred just 60 years ago. But you do think that Freedom of speech does have its limits.
|
Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of
their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.
Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being
property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.
This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.
You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".
In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is
no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the
owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a
property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.
My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.