Yes, it should be! You are free to get upset by what I say, but at no point should the government be intervening on your behalf to punish me, unless it turns to harassment.
Well, that's one way to look at the world. Absolutist free speech.
But from a pragmatic point of view, free speech is a tool. It is useful protecting it up to the point it is, well, useful, but not beyond.
It is important that everyone can get their point across. But in any way? Surely not. If a billionaire decides to blast his podcast from every street corner, you'd be right to be annoyed. Putting it online suffices, and going beyond is harassment.
Further, even if you are happy with an absolutist free speech agenda, it doesn't mean everyone is, and I can't see why your approach should be imposed on others.
See, that's the problem with your overuse of hyperbole - you end up making this a thread about "freeze peach", rather than the real issue.
People can't tell if you mean literally die fighting for their use to say "fuck you", or if you mean figuratively people shouldn't take the topic to court to defend their free speech right to say "fuck you."
catboybotnet clearly wasn't making arguing for absolutist free speech - see the "unless it turns to harassment" exception. I'm sure catboybotnet also supports time-place-manner free speech exceptions, but didn't think include all the exceptions.
Here's the point. Saying 'fuck you' is already, broadly speaking, covered under free speech protection in the US. Since you think burning the Koran is equivalent to saying "fuck you", then burning the Koran is covered under free speech rights.
If you think "Free speech is important" but you don't recognize that saying "fuck you" is free speech, then there's a fundamental difference between your concept of free speech and the one I'm familiar with - the one in US law.
You need to explain why people should care about your non-standard definition.
rich_sasha|2 years ago
But from a pragmatic point of view, free speech is a tool. It is useful protecting it up to the point it is, well, useful, but not beyond.
It is important that everyone can get their point across. But in any way? Surely not. If a billionaire decides to blast his podcast from every street corner, you'd be right to be annoyed. Putting it online suffices, and going beyond is harassment.
Further, even if you are happy with an absolutist free speech agenda, it doesn't mean everyone is, and I can't see why your approach should be imposed on others.
eesmith|2 years ago
People can't tell if you mean literally die fighting for their use to say "fuck you", or if you mean figuratively people shouldn't take the topic to court to defend their free speech right to say "fuck you."
catboybotnet clearly wasn't making arguing for absolutist free speech - see the "unless it turns to harassment" exception. I'm sure catboybotnet also supports time-place-manner free speech exceptions, but didn't think include all the exceptions.
Here's the point. Saying 'fuck you' is already, broadly speaking, covered under free speech protection in the US. Since you think burning the Koran is equivalent to saying "fuck you", then burning the Koran is covered under free speech rights.
If you think "Free speech is important" but you don't recognize that saying "fuck you" is free speech, then there's a fundamental difference between your concept of free speech and the one I'm familiar with - the one in US law.
You need to explain why people should care about your non-standard definition.