Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?

Publicado por MyTie

You can't defend the legitimacy of a law with the law itself. That's a circular argument and it's a fallacy.

Wow. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

THE LAW IS NOT RESTRICTING SPEECH. I'm not saying it is ok to restrict speech because the law says so... I'm saying IT DOESN'T. I'm saying it restricts the actions done in conjunction with speech, such as treason. I'm saying that the power to make laws was granted by the people, in order to promote a stable society, and that's exactly what it does. It allows for freedom of speech, but doesn't allow you to commit treason with speech.

It's not like I'm using the law to justify impeding a right. I'm saying that the law doesn't impede that right. I'll say it one more time, and then I'm not going to repeat it again. THE LAW DOESN'T IMPEDE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, ONLY THE ACTIONS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT RIGHT, SUCH AS TREASON.

You now need to come up with a counterpoint, instead of just whineing that it is a circular arguement, because it isn't. Levying war and/or giving aid to an enemy government =/= speechYeah, I know. That's what I've been saying.

Let's say I'm a nuclear bomb physacist during hte cold war, and I call up Russia, and tell them how to make a nuclear bomb. I gave aid to the enemy. Now, am I protected because I have the freedom to speak? Of course not. It wasn't the speech that was illegal, but the transmission of aid to the enemy.

I said I was only going to say it one more time, but I'll say it again. The law does not excuse actions done while speaking, even if the venue choosen to commit those actions is speech. That is not to say that the law impedes speech itself. It doesn't. It impedes the treason. I'm not saying that the law justifies the restriction of speech, because that would be a fallacous arguement, you're right. I'm saying that the law doesn't restrict the speech in the first place.

And ONE more time....

THE LAW DOES NOT RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, JUST ACTIONS COMMITED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT SPEECH.

Such as harassment, or treason, or any number of actions you can utilize speech to do. Like owning a gun, there are some things you can't use it to do. Like the press, there are some things you cannot do in conjunction with media, such as child pornography.

You seem unable to make the distinction between two actions when those actions are simultanious. I'm really really sick of repeating this over and over just to have you make some stupid comment aboutYou can't defend the legitimacy of a law with the law itself. That's a circular argument and it's a fallacy.
Which is exactly the opposite of what I've been doing for the last 5 pages of trying to ram common sense down your throat.

If you don't get it now... you never will.

Publicado por 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por Hyperspacerebel

The issue I have with your view Hyper (and all libertarians) is that you argue, if it is not in the Constitution, then it should not be law.
That's not a libertarian view per se, but more of a constitutionalist view. I in no way think our constitution is a perfect legal document. However, the Constitution was written to be the basis of US law. If you want to change that, you're going to have to make a whole new country.
Qua libertarian, I believe the whole government needs an overhaul (including the Constitution). Qua American citizen, I'm willing to work with what we have...but I expect the Constitution to be the basis for it all as was intended.

What is the point of Congress then, because states can push across Amendments, so there is no need for Congress other than taxes for the military and a currency.
The roll of Congress is laid out quite well in the First Article of the Constitution. I don't think I need to repeat it here.

If there is no need for Congress,
Who's saying that?

then the President has no needed role other than the head of the military and in peacetime his job would be to lower his golf score or clear brush in Texas.
The roll of the President is laid out quite well in the Second Article of the Constitution. I don't think I need to repeat it here.

The Supreme Court ruled that they had the right to declare laws unconstitutional, which means that their main source of power is useless because it too is not in the constitution.
The roll of the Supreme Court is laid out quite well in the Third Article of the Constitution. I don't think I need to repeat it here.

Which means that our government is run by the states.
Everything not granted to the Federal Government or directly to the people is granted to the states. Correct.

Tell me, how can such a weak government overlook the largest military and economic power?
You laud the fact that we are the largest military power. I mourn the fact.

And what exactly are you claiming makes the government weak?

We need a large government to deal with issues that were never thought of by the Framers.
What's funny is they did think of those issues. Britain the the largest world power when we broke away...they didn't want that.

Librarians wants the US run purely off the Constitution,
Again, I think your confusing libertarianism with constitutionalism.

which is a view that was popular in the 1780s until about 1820-1830.
You know why it stopped being popular in the 19th century? Because we went to war over the issue and beat the crap out of the loosing side.

Your view is limited and it binds the nation too much.
Whoa whoa whoa, what? You just finished telling me that we can't be a super-power because we're not bound under a strong central government.

My father happens to work for the USCG and his job was to have an international distress signal. I am sure that everyone can agree that such a system is very important, but he worked for the UN, something that libertarians are totally against.
How do you work for the Coast Guard and the UN at the same time?
And yes, you got at least one libertarian view right: we should not bind ourselves to foreign powers.

He now is tracking shipping containers to fight illegal drugs and to prevent bombs to be put in them. Again, a UN mission and some of the laws that he uses go totally against a purely competition based economy.
I'm not really sure of your point. We can guard our own boarders just fine, why should be running around in international waters policing everyone?

If you weigh the risks and the benefits, ie a ship waits longer in port, meaning it cannot ship more goods to more people vs a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb going off in LA or NYC, one clearly beats out the other.
Again, why do we need the UN to do it? We can and should secure our own ports.

Finally I can use the law to support the law if I agree with it.
Lol, say that to yourself a couple times. For good measure stick abortion, or rape, or whatever in there instead: "I can use abortion to support abortion if I agree with abortion." What?

If I agree with what is in place why would I handicap myself by not using it?
Use it all you want. Just don't use it to defend itself.

Furthermore, the system that the government used is adopted by a philosopher!
Not sure I understand what you're saying.

It would be like me telling you not to quote Aquinas in an argument if our government was based off his teachings.
Our government is based off the Constitution. Go wild, quote it all you want. Our government is not based off the laws, but rather gives us the laws based on the Constitution (or that's what they should be doing...my whole point is that there's a disconnect in what we call America today).

It allows for freedom of speech, but doesn't allow you to commit treason with speech
It's physically impossible to commit treason with speech. I thought I already demonstrated that. Reread the definition of treason I quoted.

THE LAW DOES NOT RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, JUST ACTIONS COMMITED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT SPEECH.
Why? Or more specifically, why does the law restrict the actions committed in conjunction with the speech? BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE ANOTHER RIGHT.. And as I've been saying over and over, there is a hierarchy of rights (which I assume you agree with, considering the fact that you don't reply to any of my mentions of it).

Such as harassment, or treason, or any number of actions you can utilize speech to do.
Why? BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE PARTICULAR ACT VIOLATES A PERSONS' HIGHER RIGHTS.

Like owning a gun, there are some things you can't use it to do.
Why? BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE PARTICULAR ACT VIOLATES A PERSONS' HIGHER RIGHTS.

Like the press, there are some things you cannot do in conjunction with media, such as child pornography.
Why? BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE PARTICULAR ACT VIOLATES A PERSONS' HIGHER RIGHTS.

"I'm really really sick of repeating this over and over." As am I.

I've made this point of a hierarchy of rights at least 3-4 times now, and you have yet to respond to it.

Publicado por Squishalot

The Supreme Court ruled that they had the right to declare laws unconstitutional, which means that their main source of power is useless because it too is not in the constitution.
Which means that our government is run by the states. Tell me, how can such a weak government overlook the largest military and economic power?

Not sure how it works in the US, but... at the end of the day, your country is made up of United States, funnily enough. That means that the country is essentially dependent on the support of those states for its entire existence, and any state can pull out of that agreement if they wanted (to cause chaos), provided that they call a state referendum to amend the state constitution to pull out.

The purpose of the national government isn't to run the country with an iron fist and run roughshod over the state and county governments. The purpose is to bind all the states together into compromise agreements that can be applied country-wide. Does this mean that Congress can be held ransom by state governors? Absolutely. Does it mean that the other states will bully a dissenting state into toeing the line? Definitely.

Finally I can use the law to support the law if I agree with it.

No, you can't, not in a moral debate, because it's begging the question. MyTie is defending himself much more appropriately in saying that he's *not* relying on the law to support his argument.

@ Hyperspacerebel and MyTie:

You guys both look like you're running around in circles, but talking the same line.

You can say anything you like, that's your freedom of speech. You have the right not to be prejudiced against simply for expressing a viewpoint, providing that you don't infringe on another person's rights.

If you exercise your freedom of speech in such a way that it infringes on another person's rights/freedoms, you should be penalised in accordance with that breach. This would be fair, and you both agree that.

In that respect, going back to the original question, aside from the fact that it is difficult to trust governments, there does need to be a place to interpret the 'freedoms' provided in the constitution. A constitution is only supposed to be the overarching overview of what the laws should be aiming to achieve, and you still need the laws to define and structure it. If not, then you should be aiming to have another referendum and amendment to restrict the Government's ability to restrict freedom of speech.

Publicado por MyTie

You're hierarchy is trash. I've never heard of it. I've never seen it in the constitution. Some things are legal, and some are not. Some things are moral, and some are not. You don't have to fit 'child pornography' into some sort of pyramid scheme of rights, and whos is greater than whos, as if freedom of the press is violated with anti harassment laws. Your theories make no sense, and are impractical.

As for treason, it looks like I'm gonna have to break out the dictionary again to burst your bubble:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Telling Russia how to make a bomb, does in fact help it make war against the US. Unless, you are trying to argue that you cannot aid the enemy through speech.

Publicado por Hyperspacerebel

You can say anything you like, that's your freedom of speech. You have the right not to be prejudiced against simply for expressing a viewpoint, providing that you don't infringe on another person's rights.

If you exercise your freedom of speech in such a way that it infringes on another person's rights/freedoms, you should be penalised in accordance with that breach. This would be fair, and you both agree that.
That more or less what I'm saying, yes. I honestly am not sure which part of that MyTie is disagreeing with me about.

In that respect, going back to the original question, aside from the fact that it is difficult to trust governments, there does need to be a place to interpret the 'freedoms' provided in the constitution. A constitution is only supposed to be the overarching overview of what the laws should be aiming to achieve, and you still need the laws to define and structure it. If not, then you should be aiming to have another referendum and amendment to restrict the Government's ability to restrict freedom of speech.
I'm not sure how versed you are on the American Constitution, but I would point you to the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's not the Federal Government's place. And I would further argue that the rights in particular don't even fall into the "State's jurisdiction" category, but onto the people.

Publicado por 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por Squishalot

I'm not sure how versed you are on the American Constitution, but I would point you to the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's not the Federal Government's place. And I would further argue that the rights in particular don't even fall into the "State's jurisdiction" category, but onto the people.

No issue with that, though I'm not sure how that relates to a government's need to define and create laws to enforce rights/powers delegated by the Constitution.

Rights, if mentioned in the Federal Constitution, should be dealt with using laws by the Federal Government. It shouldn't be falling onto the people, simply because a) as you mentioned, it's ambiguous; and b) I could use that to justify beating up someone because they wouldn't let my friend finish talking, thus protecting his rights under the constitution.

Restrictions and enforcement (and penalties) have to be defined somewhere, if for nothing else but to avoid chaos.

(For the record, the Australian Constitution is similar - any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are held by the States.)

Publicado por Hyperspacerebel

You're hierarchy is trash. I've never heard of it.
Yeah, I can tell you've never heard of it.

I've never seen it in the constitution.
Because it's metaphysical in nature, not legal. Argue the metaphysics, man.

Some things are legal, and some are not.
And some things are also non-legal.

Some things are moral, and some are not.
And some things are amoral.

You don't have to fit 'child pornography' into some sort of pyramid scheme of rights, and whos is greater than whos, as if freedom of the press is violated with anti harassment laws.
Then what makes child pornography bad/immoral?

Your theories make no sense,
Something you refuse to demonstrate.

and are impractical.
How so?

As for treason, it looks like I'm gonna have to break out the dictionary again to burst your bubble:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

I honestly don't give a damn about dictionaries. I'll quote the Constitution again:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Telling Russia how to make a bomb, does in fact help it make war against the US. Unless, you are trying to argue that you cannot aid the enemy through speech.
It's not the telling that's wrong...I can talk to Russians all I want. It's the "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid" that's treasonable.
Now let's look at the hierarchy you off-handedly dismisses. The common good of common security > freedom of speech. Why? Because freedom of speech is dependant on being secure from attack.

Publicado por Hyperspacerebel

Agreed, but only insofar as they deal with upholding said rights. They have no legal right to infringe upon them.

I could use that to justify beating up someone because they wouldn't let my friend finish talking, thus protecting his rights under the constitution.
How can someone prevent you from speaking except by physically molesting you? In which case you're perfectly in your right to attack him back.

Restrictions and enforcement (and penalties) have to be defined somewhere, if for nothing else but to avoid chaos.
Enforcements yes, but I do not believe the Federal Government has any right to restrict.

Publicado por Squishalot

Enforcements yes, but I do not believe the Federal Government has any right to restrict.

Do you believe that it has the responsibility (note, not the right) to define?

Or do you think that it should fall upon the people to define what represents freedom of speech?

It's worth noting - Australia gets around all these problems by not having a Bill of Rights in the first place ;)

Publicado por 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por MyTie

Hyper, in the OP you want us to argue for or against censorship. Censorship would fall under what the government can legal ban from being shown. Arguments against censorship would argue that the government has no right to legally interfere with our rights. Therefore, when you argue your position with metaphysics, you are breaking the whole idea of your thread which is- does the government have a legal right towards censoring certain ideas.

You can't use morals in this argument. You can't use legal theory. You can't use social theory. You have to explain at a very fundamental level what is wrong with showing an 8 year old a picture of a tallywacker.

If you ignore the cheese and noodles... what is maccaroni and cheese? What is the essence of its existance?

It's an exercise of defining something without being allowed to use any definitions. Then, when you can't, that means it can't be defined. He has given you a question, and taken away the tools you need to answer it, and then pronounced it unanswerable.

Publicado por MyTie

Hyperspace, I've noticed you have this way of chopping up an argument into tiny little snippets, and then arguing against those snippets as if it disproves the arguement as a whole. Allow me to demonstrate.AgreedHow can you agree with something without completely knowing it?, but only This is a conjunction. It doesn't prove your argument in any way. insofar asYou still are doing nothing to prove your arguement. they dealWho deals in what way? This seems disjointed from your previous statements. withas I've already shown, conjunctions do nothing for your arguement. upholdingupholding what? This means nothing by itself. said rightsRights cannot speak or be spoken for.. They have noYou cannot argue that someone does not have something without demonstrating it. legalAs you have stated, this arguement has NOTHING to do with legal premises. right to infringe upon them.This is about what rights people have, not infringement on them.

Well, I think that adequately shows that you have no idea what you are talking about!

Publicado por 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por Hyperspacerebel

Hyper, in the OP you want us to argue for or against censorship. Censorship would fall under what the government can legal ban from being shown. Arguments against censorship would argue that the government has no right to legally interfere with our rights. Therefore, when you argue your position with metaphysics, you are breaking the whole idea of your thread which is- does the government have a legal right towards censoring certain ideas.

Metaphysics is one of the building blocks of politics, as can be seen in rights theory. If you're going to attack the principles of rights theory, that naturally entails attacking the metaphysics of it; because the claim is that there is a "pre-political" hierarchy of rights.

...
...
...
Grow up. Please. I want to have a discussion with you, but you seem to be doing everything in your power to make that impossible.

Hyper buddy you are using the Constitution as if our lawmakers still follow it.
The questions isn't if they are doing it, it's should they be doing it.

You are saying that giving Russians secrets for making nukes is not treason now?
Where did I say that?

Do you believe that has the responsibility (note, not the right) to define?
A qualified yes. 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.

Publicado por MyTie

Metaphysics is one of the building blocks of politics, as can be seen in rights theory. If you're going to attack the principles of rights theory, that naturally entails attacking the metaphysics of it; because the claim is that there is a "pre-political" hierarchy of rights.

Morals belong to the realm of metaphysics which means: after the physical. So does political theory. So does many of the other things that you do not want us to include in this arguement.

It's like you want us to prepare a meal, but you don't want us to use food, cooking utensils, or heat. When we ask you why, you say that none of that is cooking.

You'll be very surprised to find out that you are demanding we argue in the metaphysical realm, but ignore the tools used to do that. It is frustrating. On a side note, your way of chopping everything up is also irritating.

Let's get back to the OP:

Question: Is it ever right for governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Answer: No. However, if an action, such as treason, is done in conjunction with the speech, then that action can be restricted.

Care to address that, or are we back onto ad hominem?

Publicado por MyTie

It's physically impossible to commit treason with speech. I thought I already demonstrated that. Reread the definition of treason I quoted.You can aid the enemy through speech and the transmission of useful data, such as troop movements, aircraft locations, battle plans, etc. You make these statements that are so obviously false, and then stand by them to the end. Your ship is sinking, but you think it's all smooth sailing.

It is for that reason that I waste no more time here. Like I said before: If you don't get it by now...

Publicado por Hyperspacerebel

Morals belong to the realm of metaphysics which means: after the physical. So does political theory. So does many of the other things that you do not want us to include in this arguement.
Morals are the proper objects of ethics (which comes after anthropology. which comes after metaphysics).

It's like you want us to prepare a meal, but you don't want us to use food, cooking utensils, or heat. When we ask you why, you say that none of that is cooking.
Metaphysics is the fire, politics is the steak and ethics is the baked potato. Both are dependent on metaphysics, and both compliment each other, but they aren't dependent on each other.

You'll be very surprised to find out that you are demanding we argue in the metaphysical realm, but ignore the tools used to do that. It is frustrating. On a side note, your way of chopping everything up is also irritating.
Sorry. That's how my brain works. I deal with the particulars before dealing with the whole.

Let's get back to the OP:

Question: Is it ever right for governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Answer: No. However, if an action, such as treason, is done in conjunction with the speech, then that action can be restricted.

Care to address that, or are we back onto ad hominem?
Only if that action violates a right higher than that of speech.

Publicado por 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?

Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?

Escribir respuesta