For the benefit of anyone else still reading this thread my point was simply that freedom of speech does not and has never meant the unrestricted right to say anything in any context. Therefore it is incorrect to claim that we do not have freedom of speech in the West simply because there exist “fire in a theatre” laws and the like.
Furthermore, there is not a simple sliding scale of freedom but important qualitative differences such as whether any opinion can be freely stated (there may be restrictions on inflammatory language but that in itself doesn’t stop you stating an opinion).
If you can find a contradiction in the preceding points, great, tell it to lance strongarm, who remains convinced there’s a contradiction there, or at least something disingenuous, while repeatedly failing to show what it is.
No lance, it wasn’t. If you wish to change your position, that’s fine and I would respect you for it. But currently you’ve let you position shift without acknowledging it.
For example, you earlier said things like:
If you agree with me that FoS does not mean no restrictions on saying anything anywhere, then this point is spurious and there’s no reason to suppose it is misleading to categorize nations in that way.
Yes, there’s quite a list of restrictions on speech even in countries like the US. Off the top of my head:
[ul]
[li]Public disturbance / danger e.g. “fire in a theatre”, shouting or playing recorded speech at 4am in a residential area[/li][li]Intellectual property / copyright[/li][li]Libel[/li][li]National secrets[/li][li]Obscenity in a public area[/li][li]Lying e.g. in a courtroom[/ul][/li]
Agencies such as Freedom House do not consider such restrictions to be against freedom of speech, as they do not define freedom of speech to be the right to say anything, anywhere. It’s more about whether you have the freedom to state an opinion.
So, back on track - what if you are allowed to state some opinions, but not all?
This is why Freedom House doesn’t simply declare countries as free or not. They have a numerical scale, or at least label some countries “partly free.”
I didn’t claim to have read your mind, I simply quoted you showing an apparent inconsistency. If you feel that something you said wasn’t clear or was taken out of context, fine, feel free to clarify.
Then you don’t have freedom of speech.
Actually they do declare countries as free and not free.
But they also have scoring and “partly free” as well, mainly because it is useful to be able to see progress, rather than making the conceptual argument that you can have a “partial freedom of speech”.
If you can express opinions about 99.9% of topics, but not 0.1%, to say that you have no freedom of speech is false and highly misleading.
Nice try, but that’s bullshit. It’s because they don’t accept this silly notion that you are either totally free or you’re a slave in a totalitarian hell. There’s no point to that.
To say that a country is partly free is not to say that we accept that state of affairs, and don’t care if it becomes more free. It’s just true.
No I mean clarify the apparent contradiction. Not just say “There’s no contradiction”.
I don’t think you quite grasp what is meant by “freedom” – it implies no restrictions.
What you’re saying is essentially equivalent to “If I’ve only had sex a few times, then it’s false and misleading to say I am not a virgin”.
You’re not a virgin if you’ve had sex, no matter how few times. You don’t have freedom of speech if there are limits on what opinions can be spoken, no matter how few limits.
:rolleyes:
Sure because of course that’s what I said. That there are only those two extremes.
So if you are not entirely free, you are not free.
Are you entirely free? No? Then you’re not free at all. You’re a slave.
Sorry, but “freedom” does not imply a binary “free” vs. “not free.” There are different levels of freedom.
No, because virgin and freedom are different words with different meanings.
By your standard, most of the world, including most Western democracies, has “no freedom of speech” because they don’t have completely, absolute freedom of speech. That’s a silly statement.
Yes, it’s exactly what you’re saying. By your accounting, Canada, which is not totally free of restrictions on speech, and North Korea would go into the same category of “no freedom of speech.”
I joined this thread to explain to you that restrictions that are nothing to do with stating an opinion – like standing outside a school shouting obscenities – do not affect freedom of speech as usually defined. However, prosecuting people for expressing certain opinions absolutely is against FoS.
At every level you’ve conceded this point. However when it comes time for you to admit that it’s spurious to equate (qualitatively) restrictions on speech in the West to the Middle East you play dumb again and say “See? There are restrictions on speech everywhere!”.
It is disingenuous, and unenlightening, to say that a society is either “free” or “not free.” Even Freedom House agrees with that, as you conceded reluctantly.
I think that right there sums up pretty well the games you have been playing in this thread. I don’t understand why you’re doing it, but I’m not playing any more.