Addendum (with reply from johnronand, thank you John, fascinating points you raise — MY REPLY IS IN BOLDENED CAPS BELOW.
“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. but what’s the use if there are only you and me who agree about it? they’re what should be. not what is.
ABSOLUTELY LETS NOT CONFINE OURSELVES AND EXAMINE IF WHAT THEY DISCOVERED STILL HOLDS TRUE OR NOT
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES STAND TRUE THROUGH TIME. THATS WHY THEY ARE PRINCIPLES. EVEN IF WE ARE ONLY PEOPLE WHO AGREE ABOUT IT — TRUTH IS TRUTH.
and if we want to force those rights on other people who disagree with us, doesn’t it mean we’re taking away their rights to be disagree with you?
EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND BELIEFS WITHIN COMMON LAW — YOU HAVE EXTENSIVE FREEDOM — YOU ARE SOVEREIGN, THE LIMIT TO THOSE FREEDOMS IS WHEN YOU HARM OR THREATEN TO HARM. FOR 99% OF PEOPLE COMMON LAW SHOULD WORK WELL. THEY ARE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY LIKE UNTIL THEIR ACTIONS HARM OR THREATEN ANOTHER.
Like north korea. doesn’t Kim has the right to govern as he does? why not? his subjects agree with him. really.
I DON’T THINK THAT NORTH KOREA IS A TRUE REPUBLIC — EVERYONE IN A TRUE REPUBLIC IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW — SO THE LEADER WOULD HAVE NO MORE POWER TO HARM OR THREATEN THAN ANYONE ELSE. IN A REPUBLIC THERE IS NO ‘RIGHT TO GOVERN’ THERE ARE IS ONLY COMMON LAW. PEOPLES RIGHTS ARE EXTENDED WITH A PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH — AT ANY TIME YOU ARE ANSWERABLE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ARE YOU HARMING OR ARE YOU THREATENING. THOSE ARE FUNDAMENTAL. ANY PRIVILEGE WHICH MAY BELONG TO A JOB YOU PERFORM, AT ANY LEVEL, IS QUITE INCONSEQUENTIAL TO ESTABLISHING IF YOU HARMED OR THREATENED. IN FACT THE GREATER THE PRIVILEGE IN A REPUBLIC THE MORE CAREFUL AND CONSCIENTIOUS YOU WOULD NEED TO BE LOGICALLY. WITH POWER COMES RESPONSIBILITY AS THEY SAY.
I know about Kant. he’s clever but not meta enough. you should read about chinese legalism if you’re really interested. i recommend 韓非子. please read the original version in Chinese.
THANK YOU I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT YET. SOUNDS FASCINATING. I’M NOT A STUDENT OF KANT. I LIKE THE FOUNDING FATHERS AS THEIR TRUTHS SEEM MORE EXPERIENCE BASED. I DO BELIEVE THAT WHEN I READ THE DEC OF INDEPENDENCE THAT ITS A SOMEWHAT UNIVERSAL AND SACRED GUIDE FOR HOW WE CAN ORGANISE OURSELVES WHILE ALLOWING EACH OTHER MAXIMUM FREEDOM IN ALL AREAS.
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?
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.
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.
HARM OR THREAT CAN OCCUR THROUGH THE POWER OF SPEECH. PROPAGANDA IS BUT ONE EXAMPLE.
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?
CITIZENS SHOULD AS BE AFFORDED PROTECTION OF THE ‘LAW’ — IF HARMED OR THREATENED BY SPEECH.
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.
THE LAWS WOULD DEAL WITH BOTH ISSUES — THERE IS FULL AND UNLIMITED FREE SPEECH UP TILL YOU OR ANYONE CAUSES HARM OR THREAT OF HARM. SAME APPLIES TO FOREIGN CITIZENS. AS THESE ARE ABSOLUTES THEY WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THIS RULE OF ‘LAW’. IN A REPUBLIC CITIZENS ARE ALSO NOT FREE TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. THAT IS THE ROLE OF THE ‘LAW’ WHEN A DISPUTE OCCURS IF IT CANNOT BE RESOLVED AT THE LEVEL OF THE PARTIES. IN COMMON LAW WE ASSUME GOOD FAITH TILL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
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.
BEING IGNORANT IN A REPUBLIC IS NOT A TRANSGRESSION. THE ONLY WAY TO TRANSGRESS IS TO CAUSE HARM OR THREAT OF HARM. I DO AGREE THAT A WELL INFORMED CITIZENRY IS ALWAYS DESIRABLE. ONE MUST UNDERSTAND ONES POWERS AND THEIR LIMITS IN ORDER TO USE THEM CORRECTLY.
I agree we should not have limitless freedom on everything. but not speech. speech is the only area that shouldn’t be control.
ITS NOT ABOUT CONTROL BUT ONLY ABOUT HARM OR THREAT OF HARM. AGAIN ALL OF THIS ONLY APPLIES IN A REPUBLIC. IN A DYSTOPIA WHICH IS CHARACTERIZED BELOW THEN WHAT I’VE SAID ABOVE DOES NOT WORK.
In a dystopia you have each of these inalienables turned on it head — a ‘freedom is slavery logic’ if you will that would read something like:
- We are here to ensure that people are harmed — INCARCERATION, SURVEILLANCE, INCOME INEQUALITY, POOR ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE/ EDUCATION, LACK OF JOB SECURITY
- We are here to ensure that people are threatened (AS ABOVE)
- We are here to ensure that people do what we say (aka cannot can live as they best see fit) SURVEILLANCE, DRACONIAN ‘LAWS’, MEDIA CENSORSHIP + NEWS MANIPULATION