There is no such thing as Free Speech

[Katzndogz]

We were a country that did not imprison people for what they said. We aren't now, but we were at one time.

 

[FA_Q2]

Regarding bold #1

You are not free to scratch your nose because you were not compelled and even if you feel that you are free to, your ideas of inaction is not what I would call free.

Regarding bold #2

Again you are not free. By your own admission the fear, or the fear of consequence prevents you from smashing your own finger. The point is the consequence of a negative outcome restrains us from acting.

We are at an impasse that cannot be broached. Your insistence to equate freedom with action is not only completely false, it makes no sense whatsoever. This debate cannot continue because you refuse to accept this simple fact: freedom =/= action. They are 2 different words. 2 different concepts. Your OP is based entirely on the idea that freedom does not exist because actions are not take and those actions are not taken because freedom does not exist. It is circular reasoning. I am no longer going to post on this subject as long as you insist on defining terms incorrectly.

 

[Aristotle]

Regarding bold #1

You are not free to scratch your nose because you were not compelled and even if you feel that you are free to, your ideas of inaction is not what I would call free.

Regarding bold #2

Again you are not free. By your own admission the fear, or the fear of consequence prevents you from smashing your own finger. The point is the consequence of a negative outcome restrains us from acting.

We are at an impasse that cannot be broached. Your insistence to equate freedom with action is not only completely false, it makes no sense whatsoever. This debate cannot continue because you refuse to accept this simple fact: freedom =/= action. They are 2 different words. 2 different concepts. Your OP is based entirely on the idea that freedom does not exist because actions are not take and those actions are not taken because freedom does not exist. It is circular reasoning. I am no longer going to post on this subject as long as you insist on defining terms incorrectly.

How is this not making sense...Did you even take philosophy before? Cause from what it sounds like you have not taken philosophy before.

The whole thread is about the concept of free speech and that there is no such thing as free speech because free speech is often misconstrued as protected speech. We cannot say what we want. what you and I are doing is discussing freedom of the will and determinism.

You can yell fire in a crowded movie theater but you'll be punished. That is not free, even if in that moment you yelled fire, even still consequences will occur. I look at freedom as without restriction. Not just in a social sphere but in all areas of society.

If you are non-black let me ask you, in the midst of a group of black guys that are muscular and angry are you free to call them the "N-word?" Your most common answer is no, because of the potential consequence. The potentiality of consequence alone is what restricts you from expression and if that is true then you do not have free speech. Point blank...Get it now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Regarding bold #1

You are not free to scratch your nose because you were not compelled and even if you feel that you are free to, your ideas of inaction is not what I would call free.

Regarding bold #2

Again you are not free. By your own admission the fear, or the fear of consequence prevents you from smashing your own finger. The point is the consequence of a negative outcome restrains us from acting.

We are at an impasse that cannot be broached. Your insistence to equate freedom with action is not only completely false, it makes no sense whatsoever. This debate cannot continue because you refuse to accept this simple fact: freedom =/= action. They are 2 different words. 2 different concepts. Your OP is based entirely on the idea that freedom does not exist because actions are not take and those actions are not taken because freedom does not exist. It is circular reasoning. I am no longer going to post on this subject as long as you insist on defining terms incorrectly.

How is this not making sense...Did you even take philosophy before? Cause from what it sounds like you have not taken philosophy before.

The whole thread is about the concept of free speech and that there is no such thing as free speech because free speech is often misconstrued as protected speech. We cannot say what we want. what you and I are doing is discussing freedom of the will and determinism.

You can yell fire in a crowded movie theater but you'll be punished. That is not free, even if in that moment you yelled fire, even still consequences will occur. I look at freedom as without restriction. Not just in a social sphere but in all areas of society.

If you are non-black let me ask you, in the midst of a group of black guys that are muscular and angry are you free to call them the "N-word?" Your most common answer is no, because of the potential consequence. The potentiality of consequence alone is what restricts you from expression and if that is true then you do not have free speech. Point blank...Get it now?

How many times does this have to be said, FALSELY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.

Free speech is the power you have to speak out against oppressive government and/or religion. It is not lying about people, threatening people, or trying to get people to commit criminal acts and/or violence. Until you grasp the concept that speech is not the same thing as free speech you cannot intelligently debate the existence, or non existence, of the concept.

As for free will, which is obviously what you are trying to equate with free speech, some philosophers might argue that making a choice invalidates free will, but they would only do so if they did not understand the concept. The debate about free will is about the ability to make a choice. If someone makes a choice that proves they have free will, or the illusion thereof, the motive for that choice is irrelevant. In other words, fear does not invalidate free will, even if it influences your choice.

If we accept a deterministic universe that would invalidate free will, but you cannot reach that conclusion by arguing that fear makes the universe deterministic. In fact, by arguing that we are afraid, and that is the reason we make the choices we do, you are actually arguing in favor of free will.

 

[Aristotle]

Awaits for FA_Q2 response

 

[PaulS1950]

Freedom and rights come with a responsibility. Liberty comes with responsibility.
This could be interpreted as making these things NOT free because they have a price.
On the other hand we are truly free to do whatever we want if we care not about the responsibility of the action. We can murder-we have that freedom, but most choose not to on moral grounds.
We are free to speed and most of us do exceed the legal limit for speed on the hiways of our states and sometimes some of us choose not to speed on moral grounds while other get tickets that they pay.
The only true "free FREEDOM" is the freedom of choice. We can truly freely choose what we will or will not do on any grounds we CHOOSE to use.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Awaits for FA_Q2 response

Are you afraid of debating someone smarter than you are?

 

[midcan5]

How many times does this have to be said, FALSELY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.


Free speech is the power you have to speak out against oppressive government and/or religion. It is not lying about people, threatening people, or trying to get people to commit criminal acts and/or violence. Until you grasp the concept that speech is not the same thing as free speech you cannot intelligently debate the existence, or non existence, of the concept ...

If we accept a deterministic universe that would invalidate free will, but you cannot reach that conclusion by arguing that fear makes the universe deterministic. In fact, by arguing that we are afraid, and that is the reason we make the choices we do, you are actually arguing in favor of free will.

Being sued for libel nullifies your argument, being imprisoned for activities of speech where not allowed nullifies your position. Free will doesn't exist, free speech doesn't exist. Will and speech only come in some circumstance, the choices are limited. No one arrives at a situation open to all possibilities, you come loaded with lots of stuff as your reply demonstrates.

"And what brings my deliberations on this matter to a close? This blog post must end sometime—and now I find that I want to get lunch. Am I free to resist this feeling? Well, yes, in the sense that no one is going to compel me at gunpoint to eat lunch this minute—but I’m hungry, and I want to eat it. Can I resist this feeling for a moment longer? Yes, of course—and for an indeterminate number of moments thereafter. But I am in no position to know why I make the effort in this instance but not in others. And why do my efforts cease precisely when they do? Now I feel that it is time for me to leave in any case. I’m hungry, yes, but it also seems like I’ve made my point. In fact, I can’t think of anything else to say on the subject. And where is the freedom in that?" FREE WILL : Sam Harris

 

[PaulS1950]

"A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote against the fundamental idea of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the goverment interfering."

You mean government interfering in heathcare you want?
You mean interfering in getting government aid?
You mean interfering in being able to use negative comments about political views where the president is involved?

The government interfers in most every aspect of your life. What they can't control they tax. When they don't have enough money they tax and borrow more. The Dems want you to believe they are helping you by taxing businesses. Businesses get their money from the profits on what they sell to the public. Taxing businesses just means that they get to make a profit on charging you more than the tax that they pay. You in effect pay 50% more tax when the business passes the tax on to the consumer. We actually pay less if we paid the extra tax ourselves.

how a business makes money:
parts and supplies charge 1.5 times the cost
labor charge 3 to 4 times the cost
buildings and utilities 1.5 times the cost
other business expenses 1.5 times the cost

a music cd costs 1 - 2 cents to make - ready to play
the added costs are:
royalty fees
... ... ... these pay for artist, writers, producers, production facilities, licenses, support and travel fees.
taxes that are paid along the way by each group in the list:
... ... ... sales tax, entertainment taxes, excise taxes, warehousing and inventory taxes, fuel taxes, income taxes, and on, and on, and....

You pay the taxes for every business that you support with your purchases. You also pay the taxes paid by the truck driver who ships it and the taxes paid on the plastic it is made of.
If you had the knowledge and desire to find out how much of your money went to pay taxes in the USA it would surprise you that it is well over 60% if you include all the hidden taxes that you pay and pay a profit on to the businesses. And after all that you get to pay sales tax on all those taxes and all the other charges if your state has a sales tax.

 

[Aristotle]

Freedom and rights come with a responsibility. Liberty comes with responsibility.
This could be interpreted as making these things NOT free because they have a price.
On the other hand we are truly free to do whatever we want if we care not about the responsibility of the action. We can murder-we have that freedom, but most choose not to on moral grounds.
We are free to speed and most of us do exceed the legal limit for speed on the hiways of our states and sometimes some of us choose not to speed on moral grounds while other get tickets that they pay.
The only true "free FREEDOM" is the freedom of choice. We can truly freely choose what we will or will not do on any grounds we CHOOSE to use.

I have to disagree. For one, a determinist may ask "what prompts you to murder?" All actions are determined by something whether its a pre-condition or random. A determinist may ask thay the impulse to act is largely due to something. Nothing is isolated and absolute.

In my early example I said does a racist person have the freedom to walk up to a group ofblack gangsters and yell out the "N-word?" Most likely no. Not because their speech isn't protected, but because of the potentiality of harm. Even if someone acts you are not free from what I call social reprecussion. So in this example although this brave soul may yell out a racial slur, they are not free from harm thereforr are not totally free. Being free is being free from all spheres not just what you say dialetically.

If I walk up to a cop and tell this cop I am going to kill him, even though I have no weapon nor had any intent to kill, in true freedom I should not be handcuffed.

If I walk up to a deli and urinate on their meat products I should be free from being responsible to what happens to me thereafter.

If I am truly free I should be able to copy off other students test.

If I am truly free I should be able to run red lights (By the way just becUse you run a red light without being caught does not mean you're free, you just haven't been caught. The red light argument is an illusion to promote freedkm because its not-pre-existing knowledge of knowing red lights as unlawful is what restricts most people and those that do run red lights are just rebellious).

The point is there is no freedom. In my view All actions are determined by something else. A good example is people who work for a living. I work because I want to sustain my way of life because as a responsible adult. Although I can choose not to work, the consequence of not working will result in me being placed in conditions foreign to me, and not suitable to my way of life (e.g homelessness).

Same can be said for murder. Although I can choose to murder but I choose not to because the consequence could result in my life ending or being placed in another condition. Let me also add that in bringing up murder one is placed in a quagmire because murder is not done randomly. If I murder someone out of anger, my emotion determined my action whether I have a mental condition or not there is always an impulse that determined that action, thus there is no freedom even if you believe you made a choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many times does this have to be said, FALSELY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.


Free speech is the power you have to speak out against oppressive government and/or religion. It is not lying about people, threatening people, or trying to get people to commit criminal acts and/or violence. Until you grasp the concept that speech is not the same thing as free speech you cannot intelligently debate the existence, or non existence, of the concept ...

If we accept a deterministic universe that would invalidate free will, but you cannot reach that conclusion by arguing that fear makes the universe deterministic. In fact, by arguing that we are afraid, and that is the reason we make the choices we do, you are actually arguing in favor of free will.

Being sued for libel nullifies your argument, being imprisoned for activities of speech where not allowed nullifies your position. Free will doesn't exist, free speech doesn't exist. Will and speech only come in some circumstance, the choices are limited. No one arrives at a situation open to all possibilities, you come loaded with lots of stuff as your reply demonstrates.

"And what brings my deliberations on this matter to a close? This blog post must end sometime—and now I find that I want to get lunch. Am I free to resist this feeling? Well, yes, in the sense that no one is going to compel me at gunpoint to eat lunch this minute—but I’m hungry, and I want to eat it. Can I resist this feeling for a moment longer? Yes, of course—and for an indeterminate number of moments thereafter. But I am in no position to know why I make the effort in this instance but not in others. And why do my efforts cease precisely when they do? Now I feel that it is time for me to leave in any case. I’m hungry, yes, but it also seems like I’ve made my point. In fact, I can’t think of anything else to say on the subject. And where is the freedom in that?" FREE WILL : Sam Harris

Didn't I just explain that there is a difference between speech and the right to free speech? How does pointing out that it is possible to sue people for libel nullify that argument?

Seriously, how?

By the way, thanks for finally proving you don't know how to think.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The anti-liberty left once again chimes in with there demands to crush fundamental rights.

 

[jwoodie]

Is this discussion about philosophy or semantics? Rather than the distinction between "free speech" and "protected speech," a more relevant question regards "offensive speech:" Should someone be prevented from or held liable for saying something because the listener (even a third party) might be offended? You might be surprised that the answer is yes, at least in a business setting.

 

[PaulS1950]

Aristotle,
You are trying to force deterministic philosophy on those of use who are not believers.
In your manner of thought your life and everything in it is determined by something other than the rational mind and free choice.
If that works for you then thats all good, but you accept that premise and I reject it strongly as my life experience has shown me that I can, through free choice selct what will and will not happen. I am free to make choices and must therefore be ready to accept the consequences. It must be very soothing to know that, since you have no choice you cannot bear the responsibility of your actions. I find solace in the responsibility that I have to make my life better each day. Sorry for your circumstances.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is this discussion about philosophy or semantics? Rather than the distinction between "free speech" and "protected speech," a more relevant question regards "offensive speech:" Should someone be prevented from or held liable for saying something because the listener (even a third party) might be offended? You might be surprised that the answer is yes, at least in a business setting.

The left is authoritarian by nature. Leftism depends on coercion to enforce redistribution of wealth and obedience to rulers. For many years, the left in America has held a masquerade party where it pretends to support certain civil rights. But this is a farce, liberty and leftism cannot coexist. Leftism is a command economy with authoritarian rule.

Obama has made the revocation of constitutional rights his major priority. The attack on the 1st amendment has been unrelenting by the Obama team, so what we see here is just an Obama supporter attempting to make a philosophical argument as to why Americans should be denied civil liberties. The left is emboldened and is ready to act in revoking basic civil rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is this discussion about philosophy or semantics? Rather than the distinction between "free speech" and "protected speech," a more relevant question regards "offensive speech:" Should someone be prevented from or held liable for saying something because the listener (even a third party) might be offended? You might be surprised that the answer is yes, at least in a business setting.

You might be even more surprised to learn that business only do this to avoid the danger of litigation from idiots, and that I refuse to allow idiots to control my rights.

 

[midcan5]

"A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote against the fundamental idea of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering."

You mean government interfering in heathcare you want?
You mean interfering in getting government aid?
You mean interfering in being able to use negative comments about political views where the president is involved?

The government interfers in most every aspect of your life. What they can't control they tax. When they don't have enough money they tax and borrow more. The Dems want you to believe they are helping you by taxing businesses. Businesses get their money from the profits on what they sell to the public. Taxing businesses just means that they get to make a profit on charging you more than the tax that they pay. You in effect pay 50% more tax when the business passes the tax on to the consumer. We actually pay less if we paid the extra tax ourselves....

Taxes are part of the price of living in a society and are not relevant to the thread. Start another thread if you like.

Back OT. You are mixing up positive and negative freedoms and laws. You can go anywhere you like for healthcare provided you can pay for it, and not sure what aid has to do with topic. This again shows that freedom only exists in context. See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

But (to explain my sig quote) interfering in a woman's family decisions due to religion is not the place of government. "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey


"...Is one’s individual freedom not increased by measures such as unemployment compensation, guaranteed health insurance, public pensions, higher wages, strong unions, state-funded or provided childcare—the whole panoply of social democracy that most libertarians see as not only irrelevant to but an infringement upon individual freedom?" Corey Robin When Libertarians Go to Work… « Corey Robin


"Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stand for freedom, the notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservatives sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension." Corey Robin
_