Here is the most critical statement in that piece in my opinion:
Free speech does not extend to telling lies.
Boy does this open a can of worms and a philosophical discussion that can span generations. Actually, I very much disagree. Free speech means just that. Free speech. Responsibility for the consequences of lies is something else.
Once you go down the road of limiting what people are allowed to say based on ethical values, you run into serious problems. Asian cultures, for example, in some cases prefer to tell lies rather than the truth when the truth would cause conflict. Both sides are expected to understand that it is a lie, and it is done to save face. People raised in western cultures have a notoriously difficult time with this concept, and it creates a lot of cross cultural conflict to the uninitiated. But even in the West we have the concept of "white lies". Show me any husband who says "Yes honey. You are fat." and I'll show you a divorcee.
There is another facet though. Are people allowed to be evil with free speech? And by evil in this context I mean using false statements to coerce someone into doing something that is not in their interest. This is a moral problem, and a big one, but you can't eliminate this by moving it (and outlawing it) under the banner of free speech. As I stated above, not all lies are evil, and the perception of whether it is evil or not is influenced by culture.
And if you can't challenge the truth (which might be perceived as telling a lie by the establishment), then exactly how can you bring about change when you disagree about the nature of a fact?
TL;DR: Free speech DOES extend to lying. Individuals and societies need to use other mechanisms to convince people not to do this.
Otherwise, you'll have some authority figure assuming the role of DECIDING FOR EVERYONE what's lying and what's truth. Then that person has ultimate power over everyone. Not cool, if you're American.
Exactly as the current US Govt is pathetically attempting to do
Free speech is one thing, perjury is another. I can tell anyone whatever I want. If I were to say that under oath, and it come out later to the contrary, I would be guilty of perjury
It is up to us to use discernment individually and in aggregate to keep the liars from gaining power in our lives as well as society. It makes each of us stronger, and a rising tide raises all boats.
Having a free will does not mean having freedom from the consequences of choices. When your free speech results only in harm to yourself, nobody cares if you lie, but it is different when it results in real harm to others. This is why slander with the intent to destroy someone's reputation is illegal, and it is the reason Kyle Rittenhouse is now a millionaire.
This is precisely the point the globalists and their leftist minions have corrupted to persecute good people, and it is all based on lies established to be "official truth" for no other reason than because they say so. This is bad enough, but the issue of free speech becomes a different animal when they seek to codify their speech to be the only lawful speech. In the tradition of tyrants they have exalted the official narrative above the law, declaring the lie to be the truth, which is a lie in itself. They then use that to justify persecuting dissenters with or without the law's consent because according to their lie, people are being hurt by the "disinformation" and extreme measures are required. Nowhere has this been this more evident than in the medical lies surrounding the covid "pandemic," which they used to justify tyranny. It only fell apart because uncompromising people exposed it by telling the truth about what was really going on (often at great cost to themselves.). Should the ones who lied not be held accountable for their lies when a lot of people have died or become permanently injured because of them?
Philosophical questions about free speech do not matter when people's lives are weighed against it. A person in a crowded theater may not yell "FIRE!" when there is no fire, and the reason is obvious. If someone is trampled to death because of his moral freedom to utter a lie, he will be charged with manslaughter (or her and she if the shouter is a genetic female). My point is that it is perfectly justifiable for a society to make reasonable decisions about what people may and may not do in specific situations, and by reasonable, I mean non-burdensome and restricted in scope.
What is not justifiable is what the liberals have done, and no philosophical question about whether they have the moral freedom to lie will exonerate them. With lies they have turned justice upside down to become injustice, and with lies they turned free speech into something that exclusively protects their speech and justifies the persecution of truth-tellers. Speech has an inherent responsibility for its consequences, and liberal liars are responsible for industrial-scale death, injustice, and mayhem because of their lies. It is not okay.
On the point of telling the truth about whether your wife looks fat in a dress, I would say the issue leading to a divorce is having an infantile narcissistic wife who is making you responsible for her happiness. Get that straightened out, and you will not have to lie to her to preserve your marriage.
Here is the most critical statement in that piece in my opinion:
Boy does this open a can of worms and a philosophical discussion that can span generations. Actually, I very much disagree. Free speech means just that. Free speech. Responsibility for the consequences of lies is something else.
Once you go down the road of limiting what people are allowed to say based on ethical values, you run into serious problems. Asian cultures, for example, in some cases prefer to tell lies rather than the truth when the truth would cause conflict. Both sides are expected to understand that it is a lie, and it is done to save face. People raised in western cultures have a notoriously difficult time with this concept, and it creates a lot of cross cultural conflict to the uninitiated. But even in the West we have the concept of "white lies". Show me any husband who says "Yes honey. You are fat." and I'll show you a divorcee.
There is another facet though. Are people allowed to be evil with free speech? And by evil in this context I mean using false statements to coerce someone into doing something that is not in their interest. This is a moral problem, and a big one, but you can't eliminate this by moving it (and outlawing it) under the banner of free speech. As I stated above, not all lies are evil, and the perception of whether it is evil or not is influenced by culture.
And if you can't challenge the truth (which might be perceived as telling a lie by the establishment), then exactly how can you bring about change when you disagree about the nature of a fact?
TL;DR: Free speech DOES extend to lying. Individuals and societies need to use other mechanisms to convince people not to do this.
It HAS to.
Otherwise, you'll have some authority figure assuming the role of DECIDING FOR EVERYONE what's lying and what's truth. Then that person has ultimate power over everyone. Not cool, if you're American.
Exactly as the current US Govt is pathetically attempting to do
Also why we're in serious trouble when swearing to tell the truth with a hand on the bible is meaningless for most of society
Free speech is one thing, perjury is another. I can tell anyone whatever I want. If I were to say that under oath, and it come out later to the contrary, I would be guilty of perjury
So glad to see this comment! Critical thinking isn't dead after all.
Excellent post. Could not agree more.
It is up to us to use discernment individually and in aggregate to keep the liars from gaining power in our lives as well as society. It makes each of us stronger, and a rising tide raises all boats.
Having a free will does not mean having freedom from the consequences of choices. When your free speech results only in harm to yourself, nobody cares if you lie, but it is different when it results in real harm to others. This is why slander with the intent to destroy someone's reputation is illegal, and it is the reason Kyle Rittenhouse is now a millionaire.
This is precisely the point the globalists and their leftist minions have corrupted to persecute good people, and it is all based on lies established to be "official truth" for no other reason than because they say so. This is bad enough, but the issue of free speech becomes a different animal when they seek to codify their speech to be the only lawful speech. In the tradition of tyrants they have exalted the official narrative above the law, declaring the lie to be the truth, which is a lie in itself. They then use that to justify persecuting dissenters with or without the law's consent because according to their lie, people are being hurt by the "disinformation" and extreme measures are required. Nowhere has this been this more evident than in the medical lies surrounding the covid "pandemic," which they used to justify tyranny. It only fell apart because uncompromising people exposed it by telling the truth about what was really going on (often at great cost to themselves.). Should the ones who lied not be held accountable for their lies when a lot of people have died or become permanently injured because of them?
Philosophical questions about free speech do not matter when people's lives are weighed against it. A person in a crowded theater may not yell "FIRE!" when there is no fire, and the reason is obvious. If someone is trampled to death because of his moral freedom to utter a lie, he will be charged with manslaughter (or her and she if the shouter is a genetic female). My point is that it is perfectly justifiable for a society to make reasonable decisions about what people may and may not do in specific situations, and by reasonable, I mean non-burdensome and restricted in scope.
What is not justifiable is what the liberals have done, and no philosophical question about whether they have the moral freedom to lie will exonerate them. With lies they have turned justice upside down to become injustice, and with lies they turned free speech into something that exclusively protects their speech and justifies the persecution of truth-tellers. Speech has an inherent responsibility for its consequences, and liberal liars are responsible for industrial-scale death, injustice, and mayhem because of their lies. It is not okay.
On the point of telling the truth about whether your wife looks fat in a dress, I would say the issue leading to a divorce is having an infantile narcissistic wife who is making you responsible for her happiness. Get that straightened out, and you will not have to lie to her to preserve your marriage.