11 Jul 2022 5:01 pm
People do not even speak the same way now as they did 200 years ago. Many aspects of our constitution are intentionally open to interpretation (unspecific and general).FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑ People love to be vague about freedom of speech so that they can cry about it in stupid situations where it does not apply...which also cheapens the concept of it.
Free speech only should refer to valid political speech. People should be able to discuss the pros and cons of fascism, for example. I could even tell you things that EVEN I see as potential downsides of fascism (but naturally nobody who tries to 'argue' with me about fascism bother to bring up...nor is anyone ever curious enough to ask me lol.)
Obscenity and pornography is not freedom of speech. Hustler magazine won some lawsuit that literally argues that pornogrsphy is some sort of free speech issue. ****. There is no way that obscenity can be an interesting idea. There is nothing interesting about 'piss christ'. Such belligerent grunting need not be protected in any way because no positive contribution can possibly be made with it.
Also...being stupid is not free speech. If you are too retarded to deal with basic logic and you cannot form a valid argument ever (which is why I have so many people here on ignore)...nobody needs to be subjected to your stupidity. This can ALSO apply to people who are habitually very wrong about facts...for example the people suggesting that drinking bleach might cure covid. That is potentially harmful misinformation...and I don't think they should be allowed to lie like that. Or people who claim that Hitler hated jews for 'no reason'...utter **** and demonstrably false historical revisionism. Or people who claim that the Tulsa negro uprising was when white people just killed a huge number of Blacks for no reason...again false ****. Freedom of speech should not protect stupidity nor obvious misinformation.
Subversion or slander also has no free speech protection. For example saying that Vladimir putin poops in his pants. If that is false them I actually have no problem with vlad throwing that speaker in prison. Again, it is not political speech. And again there is no benefit to allowing purely subversive speech. Also...societies often require some dogmatic assumptions in order to maintain social cohesion. Russia seems to have decides that it is going to be based on traditional orthodox values...it cannot allow undermining those values. So people who preach gay stuff in russia...even if they were RIGHT that Russia should be nicer to gays (they arent...but hypothetically)...I think it is perfectly fine for putin to shut them down because they are undermining the very bedrock of moral values that the entire society is built on.
Anyway I hope this clears up free speech stuff.
Freedom is already a word that can, by various people, be viewed differently before you ever get to "of speech".
The old saw "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater" seeks to show that not all speech CAN be protected and/or "free". But you set up some slippery slopes, young man. tsk, tsk...
When is the line crossed for stupid or obscene? Burning a flag and desecrating a symbol? Etc.
-----
I heard this once a long time ago:
If you call a cop a pig like shouting PIG! into his face and get a baton in the face, tough **** for you.
If you shout "I think you're a PIG!" he cannot legally baton your eyebrow off your face.
One is a disrespectful insult/verbal assault on a public servant.
The other is expressing an opinion.
How true or court-tested this notion is, I don't know.
It's all vague.
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.
I like the very things you hate.