Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Now you even admit that the right of free speech is only given in the public space, and sicne the poublixc space is space expropriat5ed by the state from previous private proprietors, and since therefore the state is the adminstrator and owner of the opublic sphere and can regulate it to its liking, and has the power monopoly to make the laws that allow and ban what is to be done by people in this private space, the satate effectively is the owner, and you therefore prove me right.
|
What? I said nothing of the kind. We created our government, and though we do have our complaints about the way it is run from time to time, we do indeed reserve to ourselves certain rights, including the right to freedom of speech. Just because you are incapable of understanding this and unwilling to fight for that right yourself, doesn't mean it isn't so.
Quote:
|
If you do not believe me, you can walk to the next traffic crossroad and start yelling that you think the president deserves to be shot. You will be surprised how fast your freedom of speech in the public space is no longer tolerated by the space owner.
|
I complained to anyone who would listen when several years ago a famous actor did that very thing on a broadcast television station. It wasn't the President he wanted shot, it was a public official and his whole family. This is still technically illegal, yet it was put down to him being intoxicated at the time and nothing was done.
As to your specific example, yes, there are certain limitations, just as I theoretically have the right to do anything I want, yet that doesn't grant me a "right" to deny others of their own right to life, liberty, property etcetera. No, advocating the death of a public official can concievably be construed to be planning that death, which is definitely illegal. Still, I can shout that I believe this president or that public official deserves to be removed from office, or even jailed, without fear of recrimination or reprisal. Again, all your trying to twist it to the contrary doesn't make it so. Rights are inherent, and within the context of not infringing the rights of others we understand and support that concept. I'm sorry if you don't.
I've downloaded your link, and I'm surprised (though I shouldn't be) to find out it's more Hoppe*. I promise I will read it, but from what you're recommended before I have to say that the guy, while a professional philosopher, is also highly opinionated. It's nothing but his opinion, and from what I've seen so far my own opinion is that his opinion is very much stuck in a social context that prevents him from understanding what true freedom is supposed to be.
Still, I am looking forward to reading it in its entirety.
* Or was I thinking of Popper? The all look the same to me.