Addendum (with reply from johnronand, thank you John, fascinating points you raise — MY REPLY IS IN…
David Lowe
12

Hi David, let’s begin:

ABSOLUTELY LETS NOT CONFINE OURSELVES AND EXAMINE IF WHAT THEY DISCOVERED STILL HOLDS TRUE OR NOT

then we don’t have to mention them. mentioning their ideas [IF it’s still hold ] is enough. we don’t care who invented the wheel right?

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES STAND TRUE THROUGH TIME. THATS WHY THEY ARE PRINCIPLES. EVEN IF WE ARE ONLY PEOPLE WHO AGREE ABOUT IT — TRUTH IS TRUTH.

no. 2+2=4 is true. those rights you mentioned are not true everywhere. if they are true, then we don’t have to uphold it with force. nature will do it for us. but since they are not true according to nature, then we have to defend them with force. we’re talking about human rights, and you change it to “universal principles”. human rights in one country is different from the other country. which one is true? if it’s true, then the country with the wrong human rights can’t even stand a day. yet we even witness the USA struggle to defend the human rights, doesn’t she?

THE LIMIT TO THOSE FREEDOMS IS WHEN YOU HARM OR THREATEN TO HARM.

then we should define “harm”. to me words harms not.

I DON’T THINK THAT NORTH KOREA IS A TRUE REPUBLIC — EVERYONE IN A TRUE REPUBLIC IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW

that of course is your definition. that’s not their definition. the citizens there are happy. the leader are happy. you mean they don’t have right to govern themselves?

IN A REPUBLIC THERE IS NO ‘RIGHT TO GOVERN’ THERE ARE IS ONLY COMMON LAW.

and the common law gives right to certain people to govern. if there’s no right to govern why are we electing president or member of the house? we do that to give them right.

AT ANY TIME YOU ARE ANSWERABLE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ARE YOU HARMING OR ARE YOU THREATENING.

if they have no right [or power] to govern, why are we asking “answer” from them? why are they answerable?

WITH POWER COMES RESPONSIBILITY AS THEY SAY.

ah you agree with me actually.

I BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT HAVE UNRESTRICTED POWER IN ANY AREA — THE ULTIMATE STANDARD IS HARM OR THE THREAT OF HARM TO ANOTHER. IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ‘LAW’ TO JUDGE IF A SOMEONE HAD BEEN INJURED OR NOT IF THE PARTIES COULD NOT SETTLE THE MATTER BETWEEN THEMSELVES AMICABLY.

responsibility of the law. and the law is created by human. and if all citizens think the same as me, then your belief [I BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT HAVE UNRESTRICTED POWER IN ANY AREA] is irrelevant. let’s define harm or injury. if i say every single words you say hurts me, does it mean that you can’t say anything?

HARM OR THREAT CAN OCCUR THROUGH THE POWER OF SPEECH. PROPAGANDA IS BUT ONE EXAMPLE.

how do you proof it? if I say Einstein is stupid, who am I hurting? Propaganda hurts no one. don’t mention Nazi to me. Nazi rises not because of propaganda. you should read history. it’s because of the weakness in German government. let’s start a propaganda that say people won’t die if they jump from 100 floors. who will be hurt? those who are too stupid to believe it. will it hurt you?

CITIZENS SHOULD AS BE AFFORDED PROTECTION OF THE ‘LAW’ — IF HARMED OR THREATENED BY SPEECH.

again, what if I say speech doesn’t harm or hurt? what you’re creating is a bunch of weak citizen easily hurt by words.

SAME APPLIES TO FOREIGN CITIZENS. AS THESE ARE ABSOLUTES THEY WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THIS RULE OF ‘LAW’.

and you are going to start bombing them because of something they say? why would they be subject to this rule or law? unless they agree with it? why should they agree?

below are some quotes for you

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall

and if you think it’s not worth saying,

Aujourd’hui ce qui ne vaut pas la peine d’être dit, on le chante
Nowadays what isn’t worth saying is sung
~ Pierre de Beaumarchais, Le Barbier de Séville (1775), act I, scene II.

I asked my guide how it was possible the judicious part of them could suffer such incoherent prating?
“We are obliged,” said he, “to suffer it, because no one knows, when a brother rises up to hold forth, whether he will be moved by the spirit or by folly. In this uncertainty, we listen patiently to every one. We even allow our women to speak in public; two or three of them are often inspired at the same time, and then a most charming noise is heard in the Lord’s house.”
“You have no priests, then?” said I.
“No, no, friend,” replied the Quaker; “heaven make us thankful!” Then opening one of the books of their sect, he read the following words in an emphatic tone: “God forbid we should presume to ordain any one to receive the Holy Spirit on the Lord’s day, in exclusion to the rest of the faithful!”
Voltaire’s conversations with the Quaker [Andrew Pit]

even a Quaker supported free speech. can’t a philosopher do better?

PS. up until now, we haven’t talked about the possibility of controlling speech.

:)