"What about the apparent exceptions to freedom of speech— restrictions on libel, fraud, incitement, and so on? Shouldn’t the legal system restrict a person engaged in those types of speech?
"Yes, it should. The reason is not that they constitute exceptions, however. Rather, it should do so as the proper, context-sensitive application of the absolute principle of free speech."~ philosopher Tara Smith, from her paper 'The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech'
.
▼
Monday, 25 January 2021
No, they're not "exceptions" to free speech
2 comments:
We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
But we do (ir)regularly moderate comments -- and we *will* delete any with insulting or abusive language. Or if they're just inane or off topic. It’s okay to disagree, but pretend you’re having a drink in the living room with the person you’re disagreeing with. This includes me.
PS: Have the honesty and courage to use your real name. That gives added weight to any opinion.
Exactly. This is the same reason that there is no right to a "roof over one's head" - it presupposes that there is a right to infringe on other's rights to life and liberty.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. There is a right to peacefully *pursue* putting a roof over one's head, and clear right to it once erected, but no "right" for others to supply you with one.
Delete