This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Only if that action violates a right higher than that of speech.
Why? Why does treason have to violate a right higher than the freedom of speech in order to be stopped?
Because it's not the government's place to define what's right and wrong. Things are already right and wrong in their nature. It's the government's job to enforce that.
So in the case of a person committing treason we have two conflicting rights: free speech and well-being of the community/nation. Now from a metaphysical standpoint, speaking freely depends on there being a safe community/nation in which to speak; thus the right to a safe community/nation is more fundamental than the right to free speech. So, if the two are in conflict as in this case, the right to a safe community/nation prevails.
Now that we have defined which is better from their natures, the government now has leave to enforce that.
Post by
Squishalot
They have a responsibility, within the bounds of the constitution--i.e. they can't infringe upon anything that's stated in one part to define another part.
Now that we have defined which is better from their natures, the government now has leave to enforce that.
But then, you're now essentially infringing on the first part in order to protect/define the second, contradicting what you've said earlier.
The act of defining where a safe community ranks in a hierarchy relative to freedom of speech, by definition, infringes on the freedom of speech.
Post by
MyTie
Only if that action violates a right higher than that of speech.
Why? Why does treason have to violate a right higher than the freedom of speech in order to be stopped?
Because it's not the government's place to define what's right and wrong. Things are already right and wrong in their nature. It's the government's job to enforce that.
So in the case of a person committing treason we have two conflicting rights: free speech and well-being of the community/nation. Now from a metaphysical standpoint, speaking freely depends on there being a safe community/nation in which to speak; thus the right to a safe community/nation is more fundamental than the right to free speech. So, if the two are in conflict as in this case, the right to a safe community/nation prevails.
Now that we have defined which is better from their natures, the government now has leave to enforce that.
No. Free speech and well being of a country are not conflicting. The speech isn't what is being called into question. It is the transmission of harmful data, not that the person was speaking. The government cannot and will not stop a person from talking. They can't. Anyone is free to say anything. Period. However, if they confess to murder, or commit treason, those things are wrong. The government will never prosecute someone for speaking. However, if they say stuff that is harmful, they can be prosecuted for causing harm. Speech is a tool. That tool will never be taken away or impeded. However, if harm is done with that tool, that harm can be stopped and impeded. Don't confuse the tool with the act.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They have a responsibility, within the bounds of the constitution--i.e. they can't infringe upon anything that's stated in one part to define another part.
Now that we have defined which is better from their natures, the government now has leave to enforce that.
But then, you're now essentially infringing on the first part in order to protect/define the second, contradicting what you've said earlier.
The act of defining where a safe community ranks in a hierarchy relative to freedom of speech, by definition, infringes on the freedom of speech.
That's why the government isn't doing the defining.The nature of the act itself is the one doing the defining.
My first quote says the government cannot infringe upon any part of the Constitution.
My second quote says that the right and duty to prevent those acts which by their nature infringe on higher rights.
I don't see how the two contradict.
Post by
Squishalot
By definition, a government who enforces one right over another will have to define both and infringe on one. Unless you're saying the government can't enforce either, which directly contradicts yourself.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No. Free speech and well being of a country are not conflicting. The speech isn't what is being called into question. It is the transmission of harmful data, not that the person was speaking. The government cannot and will not stop a person from talking. They can't. Anyone is free to say anything. Period. However, if they confess to murder, or commit treason, those things are wrong. The government will never prosecute someone for speaking. However, if they say stuff that is harmful, they can be prosecuted for causing harm. Speech is a tool. That tool will never be taken away or impeded. However, if harm is done with that tool, that harm can be stopped and impeded. Don't confuse the tool with the act.
You're missing the distinction between the act and it's circumstances.
The act is taking a certain piece of information and giving it to somebody. There are two circumstances present. 1) It was transmitted through "speech" and 2) it was a government secret being given to an enemy state.
Now the act itself is neither good nor bad in and of itself, so we have to look at the circumstances. The first is a good and is a protected right. The second is bad and the violation of a protected right.
So, yes, the circumstances are conflicting. Now the right that is violated by the second is metaphysically and intrinsically higher than the right affirmed by the first. Therefore the act itself is bad. Therefore it falls to the government to take action against it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
By definition, a government who enforces one right over another will have to define both and infringe on one. Unless you're saying the government can't enforce either, which directly contradicts yourself.
There's a difference between a government infringing on a right and the act itself denying a right (see my response to MyTie right above this).
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
No. Free speech and well being of a country are not conflicting. The speech isn't what is being called into question. It is the transmission of harmful data, not that the person was speaking. The government cannot and will not stop a person from talking. They can't. Anyone is free to say anything. Period. However, if they confess to murder, or commit treason, those things are wrong. The government will never prosecute someone for speaking. However, if they say stuff that is harmful, they can be prosecuted for causing harm. Speech is a tool. That tool will never be taken away or impeded. However, if harm is done with that tool, that harm can be stopped and impeded. Don't confuse the tool with the act.
You're missing the distinction between the act and it's circumstances.
The act is taking a certain piece of information and giving it to somebody. There are two circumstances present. 1) It was transmitted through "speech" and 2) it was a government secret being given to an enemy state.
Now the act itself is neither good nor bad in and of itself, so we have to look at the circumstances. The first is a good and is a protected right. The second is bad and the violation of a protected right.
So, yes, the circumstances are conflicting. Now the right that is violated by the second is metaphysically and intrinsically higher than the right affirmed by the first. Therefore the act itself is bad. Therefore it falls to the government to take action against it.
Which would a person be arrest for? Treason, or speech? Which would he hear:
"You are under arrest for speech"
or
"You are under arrest for treason"
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Since my post has kind of been lost in the chaos of determining whether graphic sex and minors and what not is ok, I will reiterate:
Remember what freedom of speech was originally for. It's not meant for everyone to run around acting like idiots saying dumb, indecent, offensive, untruthful, damaging things and then saying well I can do that cus it's my right to freedom of speech! It's supposed to protect people who criticize the government.
Back in the day the king was appointed by god or the divine, or in some cases related, so he could do whatever he wanted and if you said wait a second, that's wrong what you're doing, you got your head chopped off. And that's a big reason people came to america in the first place, cus they wanted their own tax laws, their own religious practices. Freedom of speech is supposed to give you the ability to speak out against the government without getting in trouble.
So stop trying to turn it into some pervs freedom of expression posting porn on billboards, or some traitor selling bomb manuals to iran. Those things were never intended to be protected by freedom of speech.
YES! This post really hit the nail on the head. Freedom of speech is there to protect people's rights to talk, even if thier opinions are negative about the government. Freedom of speech is no there to protect espionage, and there is no such thing as a hiearchy of rights, where one right has to be violated to impede another right.
montezuma7, I praise your common sense.
Post by
MyTie
The only issue I have with the above, is that the, if you speak out against the king, you lost your head, is too simplistic. Furthermore, things such as porn, nuclear bombs, and and a global economy and political climate are things that had no effect on the Framers of the Constitution. The reason is that they never truly existed. To say, well the Framers did not intend this, is a poor argument. The Constitution we have today is designed for a country in the late 18th, early 19th century. The USA is run off the oldest Constitution in the world, the fact of the matter is that we need to toss it out and make a new one that reflects our times. Our pundits, political leaders, and the media put the Framers of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers on such a pedestal and they think they can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is that they are doing harm at the moment because our government is run off a document and legal mindset that is 300 years old. Saying, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended is overly simplistic. What you should be saying is, is what he is saying alright in our modern society with our modern standards for decency.
That's what the amendment process is for.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No. Free speech and well being of a country are not conflicting. The speech isn't what is being called into question. It is the transmission of harmful data, not that the person was speaking. The government cannot and will not stop a person from talking. They can't. Anyone is free to say anything. Period. However, if they confess to murder, or commit treason, those things are wrong. The government will never prosecute someone for speaking. However, if they say stuff that is harmful, they can be prosecuted for causing harm. Speech is a tool. That tool will never be taken away or impeded. However, if harm is done with that tool, that harm can be stopped and impeded. Don't confuse the tool with the act.
You're missing the distinction between the act and it's circumstances.
The act is taking a certain piece of information and giving it to somebody. There are two circumstances present. 1) It was transmitted through "speech" and 2) it was a government secret being given to an enemy state.
Now the act itself is neither good nor bad in and of itself, so we have to look at the circumstances. The first is a good and is a protected right. The second is bad and the violation of a protected right.
So, yes, the circumstances are conflicting. Now the right that is violated by the second is metaphysically and intrinsically higher than the right affirmed by the first. Therefore the act itself is bad. Therefore it falls to the government to take action against it.
Which would a person be arrest for? Treason, or speech? Which would he hear:
"You are under arrest for speech"
or
"You are under arrest for treason"
Treason...why do you even have to ask that? Let me quote myself: "The first is a
good
and is a
protected right
. The second is
bad
and the
violation of a protected right.
"
Now what if there are different circumstance. The Russians are torturing you, and you end up giving them the information. We've already seen the right to life is the most fundamental right, therefore it trumps the right to a safe society. We come upon him half-dead from the torture, guess what--we're not going to put him to death for treason.
Post by
Squishalot
We've already seen the right to life is the most fundamental right, therefore it trumps the right to a safe society. We come upon him half-dead from the torture, guess what--we're not going to put him to death for treason.
About to sleep, but couldn't help but reply to this quickly.
If right to life trumps the right to a safe society, does that imply a) that you're not going to put him to death even if he wasn't tortured; and b) you shouldn't be putting anyone to death at all, since it's the most fundamental right?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
We've already seen the right to life is the most fundamental right, therefore it trumps the right to a safe society. We come upon him half-dead from the torture, guess what--we're not going to put him to death for treason.
About to sleep, but couldn't help but reply to this quickly.
If right to life trumps the right to a safe society, does that imply a) that you're not going to put him to death even if he wasn't tortured; and b) you shouldn't be putting anyone to death at all, since it's the most fundamental right?
If you're asking if I don't agree with the death penalty, the answer is yes. I think it's primitive and barbaric, and no living being has the right to take the life of another unless another's life is at stake (ie self-defense). I just used death in my example because that's the common practice for treason.
Post by
Squishalot
We've already seen the right to life is the most fundamental right, therefore it trumps the right to a safe society. We come upon him half-dead from the torture, guess what--we're not going to put him to death for treason.
About to sleep, but couldn't help but reply to this quickly.
If right to life trumps the right to a safe society, does that imply a) that you're not going to put him to death even if he wasn't tortured; and b) you shouldn't be putting anyone to death at all, since it's the most fundamental right?
If you're asking if I don't agree with the death penalty, the answer is yes. I think it's primitive and barbaric, and no living being has the right to take the life of another unless another's life is at stake (ie self-defense). I just used death in my example because that's the common practice for treason.
Actually, I'm not asking for your opinion on whether the death penalty is right or not, or the morals of it (sorry if that sounds rude, not intended to be, and again, a reminder that I'm from Australia, where we don't have a death penalty), I'm asking you, from a constitutional perspective, your argument suggests that the death penalty is unconstitutional. If it's not deemed to be unconstitutional, as demonstrated through use of it without being deemed unconstitutional by your top courts, then your argument is flawed.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Actually, I'm not asking for your opinion on whether the death penalty is right or not, or the morals of it (sorry if that sounds rude, not intended to be, and again, a reminder that I'm from Australia, where we don't have a death penalty), I'm asking you, from a constitutional perspective, your argument suggests that the death penalty is unconstitutional. If it's not deemed to be unconstitutional, as demonstrated through use of it without being deemed unconstitutional by your top courts, then your argument is flawed.
Yes, I believe it's unconstitutional. Yes, I believe that any court that upholds the death penalty is misinterpreting the Constitution.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.