It's just a man-made deception that threatens liberty.
The problem I have with people who take the position that freedom stops at another person's offense is that it's subjective beyond comprehension.
Let me explain.
A person who believes freedom of speech comes with conditions and those conditions must be enforced by law does not in fact support free speech. As a mentioned in a previous post, they support conditional or controlled speech.
So they'll assert that freedom of speech is not 'free' and that people just can't insult other people gratuitously. That they can not, for instance, insult their race or religion. It's nonsense but let's go with it. The basic tenet, as far as I can deduce, of this position is such people will qualify their alleged support for free speech except in instances where a person is being 'obviously' insulting. So, in this way, Charlie Hebdo was 'obviously' provoking madmen into desperate action. Ergo, the government must impose 'hate speech' laws.
Problem is there is no way to draw any real lines as to what can and can not be uttered. The nuance of humanity is too great for such an experiment. Once you begin the process of putting 'caps' on speech, you will eventually ban free speech for the simple reason that what's 'obvious' to one person is not so to another.
There have been calls to consider 'anti-government' rhetoric as 'hate speech'. How in the world can this be determined let alone enforced? My blog, for example, is but a gigantic diatribe against our increasing dependence on government (always factually and evidence based mind you) but that won't someone from one day claiming I'm an 'extremist' and should be charged under some statute in a hate law.
People are being called racist for merely questioning waste in the welfare state.
People are wondering if we should throw people in prison for being 'climate deniers'.
People, not entirely unrelated, think it's common sense to take a private business to court in order to compel them to bake a cake for gay marriages they don't want to bake. Proper common sense is concluding the bakers are not worth the time and that it would be best to take your business elsewhere. Free markets, free minds after all. Making it a point to compel to make it is hopelessly unproductive and creates ill-will; not to mention the possibility of not getting the bakers full love in baking it. Just move on. Pick and choose your battles.
This is not normal or healthy in an apparent free society. When you want to destroy a life because a person doesn't agree with you, the problem lays directly with the people making this argument. They're the neo-Jacobins posing a direct threat to all of us in their insane position.
Everyone's a victim now. Why, you may even be a racist (even you adopted a black child or married Latino) and you don't even know it.
This is the latest development from the psychotic progressive side of the coin. Thought and emotional control is in full flight.
And who gets to do the enforcing?
The government. Naturally. People with weak minds with weak arguments always run to the government to coerce people into their views. It's all they got.
And we all know the government is fair, just and responsible in their application of power. No double standards, no siree. No railroading of citizens for political expediency, na-ah. Why anyone would offload their inherent right to free speech or expression to civil servants (like ambitious prosecutors) or non-elected bodies (like tyrannical Human Rights Commissions) is beyond me to comprehend. Then again, I have a natural healthy skepticism towards the vices and virtues that make up human nature. If there's one thing I learned is you don't hand power to people for its own sake; especially when it comes to your individualism.
All I know is listening to such people over the last few days is that it's painfully obvious to me they're not for free speech or expression.
They're just misguided in the notion that words leads to unbelievable hate.
I contend hate has other motives. Words are just an excuse to do bad things.
Before one embarks on a barbaric journey of 'I'm for free speech but' they should ponder what they're advocating for a little more.
For if you think you can put a 'sensible' or 'reasonable' limit on speech, then I submit you're not just anti-free speech; you missed the entire plot of what it means to be a free, sovereign human being.
The problem I have with people who take the position that freedom stops at another person's offense is that it's subjective beyond comprehension.
Let me explain.
A person who believes freedom of speech comes with conditions and those conditions must be enforced by law does not in fact support free speech. As a mentioned in a previous post, they support conditional or controlled speech.
So they'll assert that freedom of speech is not 'free' and that people just can't insult other people gratuitously. That they can not, for instance, insult their race or religion. It's nonsense but let's go with it. The basic tenet, as far as I can deduce, of this position is such people will qualify their alleged support for free speech except in instances where a person is being 'obviously' insulting. So, in this way, Charlie Hebdo was 'obviously' provoking madmen into desperate action. Ergo, the government must impose 'hate speech' laws.
Problem is there is no way to draw any real lines as to what can and can not be uttered. The nuance of humanity is too great for such an experiment. Once you begin the process of putting 'caps' on speech, you will eventually ban free speech for the simple reason that what's 'obvious' to one person is not so to another.
There have been calls to consider 'anti-government' rhetoric as 'hate speech'. How in the world can this be determined let alone enforced? My blog, for example, is but a gigantic diatribe against our increasing dependence on government (always factually and evidence based mind you) but that won't someone from one day claiming I'm an 'extremist' and should be charged under some statute in a hate law.
People are being called racist for merely questioning waste in the welfare state.
People are wondering if we should throw people in prison for being 'climate deniers'.
People, not entirely unrelated, think it's common sense to take a private business to court in order to compel them to bake a cake for gay marriages they don't want to bake. Proper common sense is concluding the bakers are not worth the time and that it would be best to take your business elsewhere. Free markets, free minds after all. Making it a point to compel to make it is hopelessly unproductive and creates ill-will; not to mention the possibility of not getting the bakers full love in baking it. Just move on. Pick and choose your battles.
This is not normal or healthy in an apparent free society. When you want to destroy a life because a person doesn't agree with you, the problem lays directly with the people making this argument. They're the neo-Jacobins posing a direct threat to all of us in their insane position.
Everyone's a victim now. Why, you may even be a racist (even you adopted a black child or married Latino) and you don't even know it.
This is the latest development from the psychotic progressive side of the coin. Thought and emotional control is in full flight.
And who gets to do the enforcing?
The government. Naturally. People with weak minds with weak arguments always run to the government to coerce people into their views. It's all they got.
And we all know the government is fair, just and responsible in their application of power. No double standards, no siree. No railroading of citizens for political expediency, na-ah. Why anyone would offload their inherent right to free speech or expression to civil servants (like ambitious prosecutors) or non-elected bodies (like tyrannical Human Rights Commissions) is beyond me to comprehend. Then again, I have a natural healthy skepticism towards the vices and virtues that make up human nature. If there's one thing I learned is you don't hand power to people for its own sake; especially when it comes to your individualism.
All I know is listening to such people over the last few days is that it's painfully obvious to me they're not for free speech or expression.
They're just misguided in the notion that words leads to unbelievable hate.
I contend hate has other motives. Words are just an excuse to do bad things.
Before one embarks on a barbaric journey of 'I'm for free speech but' they should ponder what they're advocating for a little more.
For if you think you can put a 'sensible' or 'reasonable' limit on speech, then I submit you're not just anti-free speech; you missed the entire plot of what it means to be a free, sovereign human being.
People will take what they consider to be an ethical or moral stand the same way people come up with "big ideas" and grandiose schemes. They never think about "the devils in the works" ...or "the devils in the plans" ...or "the devils in the undertaking".
ReplyDelete