Hi John, there MUST be limits to freedoms — otherwise we end up anarchy as Kant shows.
David Lowe
1

“The Founding Fathers never believed in FREE SPEECH without limits”

what I meant when I said “let the dead buries the dead” is don’t confine ourselves to what the founding fathers thought or believed.

the question we should ask ourselves is: should we have free speech without limit, now?

if not, what should be the limit? who should limit it?

please forgive me that I have not read your article. I’ll do it after I write this response, why?

because I support free speech. limitless free speech. and I don’t think you do, based on

“Free speech has long been held up by academics as the very pinnacle of western democracy and yet when you study the ‘inalienables’ there are plenty of circumstances (such as during a trial) when free speech is absolutely toxic to our ‘inalienables’”

now let me say why should we have limitless free speech.

because speech never hurt people.

those who are hurt by speech should not be allowed to hold any government or military position. because speech is the cheapest thing your opponent can use to affect you. if you’re affected by speech, then your opponent can destroy you just by saying something.

without limitless free speech, how can we train our citizen to be immune by speech?

which citizen is better to you? a. one that can’t do a proper job because his something his opponent say or b. one that can ignore what his opponent say?

you can control the speech of your citizen. can you control the speech of your opponent’s citizen? without limitless speech, your citizen can be easily triggered to act.

you should read the Chinese warfare. then you’ll know why it’s good to train your citizen to ignore irrelevant speech.

limitless freedom of speech only reveal the ignorance of the speaker.

:)

I agree we should not have limitless freedom on everything. but not speech. speech is the only area that shouldn’t be control.