moderated Re: Parler


 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 06:40 PM, James English wrote:
The consequences of speech must be separated out entirely
from the speech itself, otherwise we risk creating the sort of society
in which people are aggressively self-censoring in case somebody hears
what they say and takes it in an unintended way.
-
Or, in the intended way.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.  Self-expression has never, and should never, come without the possibility of consequences - whether wildly positive or negative.

It is simply not possible to divorce what one says from the reactions of one's listeners, and those listeners may be individuals or entities.

It's also not reasonable to "give a pass" to anything and everything in the name of free speech.  That's not what freedom of speech is ever been.  While I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it sounds great, in theory, it's never been done in practice.  What you (the generic you) say and/or do has natural consequences.

I am only worried about what the government can or cannot control in terms of speech, and we are diametrically opposed in our opinions about the prohibition of speech which has direct negative impacts on public safety ("fire!!" in a crowded theater).  It's indefensible, serves no political purpose, and should be strictly prohibited.  My right not to be trampled, as well as that of all the other theater patrons, trumps anyone's right to yell fire because they feel like it.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 20H2, Build 19042  

One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.

           ~ André Gide

Join main@jfw.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.