There is no such thing as Free Speech

[Quantum Windbag]

I will have to post my Reductio Ad Absurdum later.

Still waiting.

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

how does fear restrict people? It didn't seem to restrict the guy that shot up the Batman premiere in Aurora, nor did it restrict everyone who continued to go to the movie even after that happened. Fear doesn't restrict firefighters who risk their lives to protect people and property.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

That is a rather warped view of freedom. You are essentially stating that because I choose to not do something (the reason is meaningless) that I am not free to do it. That is incorrect no matter how you want to slice it.

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this acedentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt. That does not mean that I lack the freedom to do so. That freedom is there, I simply chose not to exercise it because the consequences are not something I wish to happen.

I have to ask here, and I am not trying to be an ass, but do you even understand what freedom even means? Again, we are talking in the ability not the legal protection because you have not even addressed that yet.

No you re not because fear of consequence restrains you from acting or society has indoctrinated you with the thought that acting abruptly is irrational. Your argument has failed. If you truly believe in freedom, do as I say, walk in that police station.

You won't because for one, you won't listen to a stranger and two, you are afraid of the consequences of irrational behavior. You are restricted by something.

As far as your question yes I know what freedom is and not to be an ass but I highlighted in my earlier posts that people should stop saying they have freedom of speech and indicate they have protected speech.

Wanna bet on that one?

 

[Aristotle]

Hey Quantum FYI I am not going to respond to you. You might wanna stop quoting me asking me questions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey Quantum FYI I am not going to respond to you. You might wanna stop quoting me asking me questions.

If we apply your logic your fear of me demonstrating how wrong your premise that fear of repercussion proves we have no free will means you can't respond because the universe will not let you learn that you are wrong.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

That is a rather warped view of freedom. You are essentially stating that because I choose to not do something (the reason is meaningless) that I am not free to do it. That is incorrect no matter how you want to slice it.

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this acedentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt. That does not mean that I lack the freedom to do so. That freedom is there, I simply chose not to exercise it because the consequences are not something I wish to happen.

I have to ask here, and I am not trying to be an ass, but do you even understand what freedom even means? Again, we are talking in the ability not the legal protection because you have not even addressed that yet.

No you re not because fear of consequence restrains you from acting or society has indoctrinated you with the thought that acting abruptly is irrational. Your argument has failed. If you truly believe in freedom, do as I say, walk in that police station.

You won't because for one, you won't listen to a stranger and two, you are afraid of the consequences of irrational behavior. You are restricted by something.

As far as your question yes I know what freedom is and not to be an ass but I highlighted in my earlier posts that people should stop saying they have freedom of speech and indicate they have protected speech.

Your definition of freedom is completely off. As I stated (and you ignored) your connecting freedom to actual action is unreasonable and makes the entire idea of freedom meaningless. The examples I used:

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this accidentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt.


You never addressed this. You simply restated that inaction because of consequence means you are not free. That is rather asinine and makes zero sense. The ABILITY to take action is the freedom that you have and the fact that you choose not to take that action does not negate the fact that you had the freedom in the first place.

 

[Aristotle]

Still waiting.

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

how does fear restrict people? It didn't seem to restrict the guy that shot up the Batman premiere in Aurora, nor did it restrict everyone who continued to go to the movie even after that happened. Fear doesn't restrict firefighters who risk their lives to protect people and property.

I do not take into account someone with a mental disorder nor did I take into account people that are sociopaths. When I mention the concept of freedom I am discussing it from a rational perspective such as one who is rational in action. It can be easily stated that someone who suffers from Schizophreni is not free because there mind does not allow them to act rationally to decipher between auditory voices projected from the mind from actual real voices in reality.

The man who shot up the theatre made an irrational judgment and based on his mental profile I believe he was compelled based on his irrational view of reality.

 

[Aristotle]

That is a rather warped view of freedom. You are essentially stating that because I choose to not do something (the reason is meaningless) that I am not free to do it. That is incorrect no matter how you want to slice it.

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this acedentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt. That does not mean that I lack the freedom to do so. That freedom is there, I simply chose not to exercise it because the consequences are not something I wish to happen.

I have to ask here, and I am not trying to be an ass, but do you even understand what freedom even means? Again, we are talking in the ability not the legal protection because you have not even addressed that yet.

No you re not because fear of consequence restrains you from acting or society has indoctrinated you with the thought that acting abruptly is irrational. Your argument has failed. If you truly believe in freedom, do as I say, walk in that police station.

You won't because for one, you won't listen to a stranger and two, you are afraid of the consequences of irrational behavior. You are restricted by something.

As far as your question yes I know what freedom is and not to be an ass but I highlighted in my earlier posts that people should stop saying they have freedom of speech and indicate they have protected speech.

Your definition of freedom is completely off. As I stated (and you ignored) your connecting freedom to actual action is unreasonable and makes the entire idea of freedom meaningless. The examples I used:

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this accidentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt.


You never addressed this. You simply restated that inaction because of consequence means you are not free. That is rather asinine and makes zero sense. The ABILITY to take action is the freedom that you have and the fact that you choose not to take that action does not negate the fact that you had the freedom in the first place.

Let me get back to this when I am at work

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok.

First off it is a ridiculous notion to assume you have free speech. For one, speech indicates thought, whether the thought is benign, intentional, or rational, its still a thought. The fact of the matter is speech is governed which is why we use the term protected speech. No, you are no free because freedom in all facets of society indicates no restriction. You are not free in the slightest bit. Fear is what restricts people.

Sure, people like Matthew who is a known racist are "free" to spew racist vile online, but fear from harm is what keeps individuals like him from saying what he says in public. So no my friend, you're not free. If that were so I would challenge you to walk in a police station, tell them you have a bomb and that you'll blow them up. My best guess is you won't.

I am gonna tell you why you won't:

1) You think such an endeavor is foolish
2) You may land in jail
3) You may be shot


Regardless, you're still restricted by something.

how does fear restrict people? It didn't seem to restrict the guy that shot up the Batman premiere in Aurora, nor did it restrict everyone who continued to go to the movie even after that happened. Fear doesn't restrict firefighters who risk their lives to protect people and property.

I do not take into account someone with a mental disorder nor did I take into account people that are sociopaths. When I mention the concept of freedom I am discussing it from a rational perspective such as one who is rational in action. It can be easily stated that someone who suffers from Schizophreni is not free because there mind does not allow them to act rationally to decipher between auditory voices projected from the mind from actual real voices in reality.

The man who shot up the theatre made an irrational judgment and based on his mental profile I believe he was compelled based on his irrational view of reality.

Exceptions prove the rule, your rule failed the proof.

 

[there4eyeM]

I think that the founders who honored freedom of expression the way it is in the Constitution believed that speech would mean on intelligent subjects and with a thoughtful approach.

If it were a matter of merely that, we would have absolutely no problem.

As it is, speech is protected and that is as it should be. Long may it continue, and down with censorship.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think that the founders who honored freedom of expression the way it is in the Constitution believed that speech would mean on intelligent subjects and with a thoughtful approach.

If it were a matter of merely that, we would have absolutely no problem.

As it is, speech is protected and that is as it should be. Long may it continue, and down with censorship.

That would explain why none of the founders ever insulted their political opponents.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI"]Attack Ads, Circa 1800 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[there4eyeM]

I think that the founders who honored freedom of expression the way it is in the Constitution believed that speech would mean on intelligent subjects and with a thoughtful approach.

If it were a matter of merely that, we would have absolutely no problem.

As it is, speech is protected and that is as it should be. Long may it continue, and down with censorship.

That would explain why none of the founders ever insulted their political opponents.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI"]Attack Ads, Circa 1800 - YouTube[/ame]

You have to admit their language was much more artful, original and thundering than our woeful contemporaries.

 

[Aristotle]

how does fear restrict people? It didn't seem to restrict the guy that shot up the Batman premiere in Aurora, nor did it restrict everyone who continued to go to the movie even after that happened. Fear doesn't restrict firefighters who risk their lives to protect people and property.

I do not take into account someone with a mental disorder nor did I take into account people that are sociopaths. When I mention the concept of freedom I am discussing it from a rational perspective such as one who is rational in action. It can be easily stated that someone who suffers from Schizophreni is not free because there mind does not allow them to act rationally to decipher between auditory voices projected from the mind from actual real voices in reality.

The man who shot up the theatre made an irrational judgment and based on his mental profile I believe he was compelled based on his irrational view of reality.

Exceptions prove the rule, your rule failed the proof.

Negative....

"Attorneys for accused movie theater shooter James Holmes mentioned three times during a Thursday afternoon court hearing that he is mentally ill, laying the base for an insanity defense."

7NEWS - Attorneys: Theater Shooting Suspect Is Mentally Ill - News Story

If the above is true as is in all cases of those suffering from mental disorders anyone's whose mind is incapacitated from rational thought are devoid from "choice." A schizophrenic who kills because voices tell him to do such acts are not freely choosing to act irrationally they are acting under the basis of their own reality which is opposite of the exterior world.

 

[Aristotle]

I think that the founders who honored freedom of expression the way it is in the Constitution believed that speech would mean on intelligent subjects and with a thoughtful approach.

If it were a matter of merely that, we would have absolutely no problem.

As it is, speech is protected and that is as it should be. Long may it continue, and down with censorship.

The founders ideology as you briefly mentioned devised a law which would protect speech. The ideas of the founders did not define speech as free, rather speech which does not transgress the boundaries of law, are to be protected without persecution. People often misinterpret speech that is protected as "free speech" which there is no such thing.

 

[Aristotle]

That is a rather warped view of freedom. You are essentially stating that because I choose to not do something (the reason is meaningless) that I am not free to do it. That is incorrect no matter how you want to slice it.

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this acedentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt. That does not mean that I lack the freedom to do so. That freedom is there, I simply chose not to exercise it because the consequences are not something I wish to happen.

I have to ask here, and I am not trying to be an ass, but do you even understand what freedom even means? Again, we are talking in the ability not the legal protection because you have not even addressed that yet.

No you re not because fear of consequence restrains you from acting or society has indoctrinated you with the thought that acting abruptly is irrational. Your argument has failed. If you truly believe in freedom, do as I say, walk in that police station.

You won't because for one, you won't listen to a stranger and two, you are afraid of the consequences of irrational behavior. You are restricted by something.

As far as your question yes I know what freedom is and not to be an ass but I highlighted in my earlier posts that people should stop saying they have freedom of speech and indicate they have protected speech.

Your definition of freedom is completely off. As I stated (and you ignored) your connecting freedom to actual action is unreasonable and makes the entire idea of freedom meaningless. The examples I used:

I am perfectly capable of scratching my nose. I have that freedom. My nose does not itch so I choose not to scratch it. By your statements in the above, you would say that I am not free to do so. In the same manner, I am free to smash my finger with a car door. In fact, I may even accomplish this accidentally. I choose not to do so because I know that it will hurt.


You never addressed this. You simply restated that inaction because of consequence means you are not free. That is rather asinine and makes zero sense. The ABILITY to take action is the freedom that you have and the fact that you choose not to take that action does not negate the fact that you had the freedom in the first place.

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think that the founders who honored freedom of expression the way it is in the Constitution believed that speech would mean on intelligent subjects and with a thoughtful approach.

If it were a matter of merely that, we would have absolutely no problem.

As it is, speech is protected and that is as it should be. Long may it continue, and down with censorship.

The founders ideology as you briefly mentioned devised a law which would protect speech. The ideas of the founders did not define speech as free, rather speech which does not transgress the boundaries of law, are to be protected without persecution. People often misinterpret speech that is protected as "free speech" which there is no such thing.

Correct, no right is absolute, rights are subject to legitimate limitations and restrictions, in accordance with Constitutional case law, including speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not take into account someone with a mental disorder nor did I take into account people that are sociopaths. When I mention the concept of freedom I am discussing it from a rational perspective such as one who is rational in action. It can be easily stated that someone who suffers from Schizophreni is not free because there mind does not allow them to act rationally to decipher between auditory voices projected from the mind from actual real voices in reality.

The man who shot up the theatre made an irrational judgment and based on his mental profile I believe he was compelled based on his irrational view of reality.

Exceptions prove the rule, your rule failed the proof.

Negative....

"Attorneys for accused movie theater shooter James Holmes mentioned three times during a Thursday afternoon court hearing that he is mentally ill, laying the base for an insanity defense."

7NEWS - Attorneys: Theater Shooting Suspect Is Mentally Ill - News Story

If the above is true as is in all cases of those suffering from mental disorders anyone's whose mind is incapacitated from rational thought are devoid from "choice." A schizophrenic who kills because voices tell him to do such acts are not freely choosing to act irrationally they are acting under the basis of their own reality which is opposite of the exterior world.

Exactly how does the fact that attorneys are claiming he is crazy prove that you aren't?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think that the founders who honored freedom of expression the way it is in the Constitution believed that speech would mean on intelligent subjects and with a thoughtful approach.

If it were a matter of merely that, we would have absolutely no problem.

As it is, speech is protected and that is as it should be. Long may it continue, and down with censorship.

The founders ideology as you briefly mentioned devised a law which would protect speech. The ideas of the founders did not define speech as free, rather speech which does not transgress the boundaries of law, are to be protected without persecution. People often misinterpret speech that is protected as "free speech" which there is no such thing.

Are you saying that when they wrote "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" they were only talking about speech that did not break the law? Can you provide any rational explanation for that absurd position? If they pass a law making it illegal to talk about any elected official would that law be restricting freedom of speech?

By the way, freedom of speech and speech are not the same thing, which is one of the reasons people who try to argue that not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater proves that freedom of speech is not unlimited are so uninformed, and why I insist it is not a issue of free speech every single time someone brings it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think that the founders who honored freedom of expression the way it is in the Constitution believed that speech would mean on intelligent subjects and with a thoughtful approach.

If it were a matter of merely that, we would have absolutely no problem.

As it is, speech is protected and that is as it should be. Long may it continue, and down with censorship.

The founders ideology as you briefly mentioned devised a law which would protect speech. The ideas of the founders did not define speech as free, rather speech which does not transgress the boundaries of law, are to be protected without persecution. People often misinterpret speech that is protected as "free speech" which there is no such thing.

Correct, no right is absolute, rights are subject to legitimate limitations and restrictions, in accordance with Constitutional case law, including speech.

I suggest you do some intense study in the law library regarding the differences between the right that is freedom of speech and speech so you don't come off so stupid the next time someone posts about free speech. Freedom of speech and of the press are both absolute, that does not mean the government cannot restrict speech or some actions of the press.

 

[editec]

I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech.

Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president.

Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.

I think you're spot on, A.

While we might have something approaching freedom of speech within the law, very few of us have anything remotely like free speech in the social realms where we really live.

And, yes, that is ALSO why I think we see such inflammatory language and hatred spewed all over boards like these.

People who have to keep their opinions to themselves in their real world lives, are suddently liberated to speak the truth of their true hearts online.

And as this board so clearly show us, some of our heartfelt beliefs are anything but acceptable to express openly in the real world.

That also explains why some of us are so damned angry when we post here.

All that pent up anger in real life gets offloaded here in boards where people do not fear retribution for showing us who they really are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech.

Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president.

Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource.

Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.

I think you're spot on, A.

While we might have something approaching freedom of speech within the law, very few of us have anything remotely like free speech in the social realms where we really live.

And, yes, that is ALSO why I think we see such inflammatory language and hatred spewed all over boards like these.

People who have to keep their opinions to themselves in their real world lives, are suddently liberated to speak the truth of their true hearts online.

And as this board so clearly show us, some of our heartfelt beliefs are anything but acceptable to express openly in the real world.

That also explains why some of us are so damned angry when we post here.

All that pent up anger in real life gets offloaded here in boards where people do not fear retribution for showing us who they really are.

I think I see another person that thinks making a choice somehow restricts the options I had before I made the choice. Tell me something, how do you make that work inside the laws of thermodynamics?