Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

9

BlackFlagged wrote

The very idea of free speech is misleading. A state that grants you a right to say certain things (as long as it doesn't endanger the state's existence) is not at all related to freedom. They should just call it approved speech.

0

Somebody_somewhere wrote

Except, no. The state doesn't grant you that right. It only restricts certain kinds of speech that might cause violence. "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins."

3

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Name the states where the government does not restrict far more than "only restricts certain kinds of speech that might cause violence"

-1

Somebody_somewhere wrote

What, just because it doesn't exist, that means it shouldn't?

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

It only restricts certain kinds of speech that might cause violence

that implies there is such a state that "only restricts... bla bla bla" could you name it?

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So my statement implying that "states do restrict more than violent speech" becomes a "a state that only restricts violent speech should not exist". Wow!

0

Somebody_somewhere wrote (edited )

Well, sorry. I thought you were someone else replying to my first post, because I saw it in the inbox. My original point still stands.

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So the idea of free speech is wrong, because the modern state goes for authorized speech? Or if not, say in the US, for a restricted version which nullifies the free part.

1

ziq wrote

Why not just call it 'speech' since that's all it actually is? When a government is involved, speech is no longer free, so them calling it free speech is ridiculous doublespeak.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So there is such a thing as proper or good doublespeak?

-1

ziq wrote

no

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Than you are not reasoning, you are rambling. Sorry. My bad.

-1

ziq wrote (edited )

I never implied there was good doublespeak, wtf are you on about?

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

so them calling it free speech is ridiculous doublespeak

which implies there is such a thing as un-ridiculous doublespeak