Holocaust Deniers Gather in Iran

Quote:

Bradylama:
It doesn't have to be. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. "Good" and "bad" are subjective judgements, and determining whether or not an opinion is good, bad, harmful, or even proper is dependant on perspective.

If judgments about goodness and badness are entirely subjective, then this discussion is borderline pointless. If neither term extends beyond the confinements of our own minds, then what are we arguing about? In this case, everyone would be right: all judgments of "good" or "bad" are identical to the statements "I feel that all X is bad/good" or "In my opinion, all X is bad/good". All we are discussing is how we as individuals perceive certain actions. My preferences for strawberry ice cream are not essentially different from my preferences regarding mass murder.

If all we are arguing about is how we should feel about certain things, such as free speech or the Holocaust, then why should I even bother providing a rationality for what I feel? Why can't I just form my subjective value judgments based on how I feel on a given day if there is nothing that commits me to a rational means of determining what is morally good or bad? Call it a gut intuition or a matter of personal taste, but it strikes me as incomprehensible that the only reason the Holocaust (or restricting free speech absolutely) is wrong is because I feel that it's wrong.

Quote:

Hachifusa:
Free speech IS free speech, and slander/libel laws don't have anything to do with it.

I guess that depends on how we define free speech. If we define free speech as the right to say whatever we want without consequence, then it seems that slander and libel are clear exceptions to freedom of speech.

If freedom of speech means that we can say whatever we want, but we must pay the consequences for things that we say, then I agree that slander and libel have little to do with free speech. Roughly, we would be allowed to say whatever we want as long as we realize that we are responsible for what we say.

Perhaps this discussion would go better if we came to a common definition of what 'free speech' refers to. Perhaps someone could come up with better definitions than the ones I came up with. At least we would be sure that we are all talking about the same thing.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Bradylama:
The First Ammendment exists in the Bill of Rights as a means of protecting minority rights. It's because value judgements can never be objective that expression of those values require protection. Unpopular sentiments should not be silenced by a majority, because it disenfranchises minorities and harms our social and governmental institutions.

I agree that the Bill of Rights protects minorities, but where do you get the idea that the founders thought value judgments weren't objective? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they all natural law theorists who thought judgments about right or wrong were built into nature by an abstract providence? It seems very strange for the Declaration of Independence to speak of unalienable rights endowed by a creator, and then a mere decade and a half later our judgments of right and wrong are completely subjective. The whole scenario seems completely out of line with Enlightenment thinking.

And I don't have any idea why my thoughts are somehow "existential". I'm merely pointing out that if good and evil are completely subjective terms, then we cannot talk about them like we talk about other objective realities, such as some scientific phenomenon.

It's good to know that we agree that the First Amendment is not a good definition. And as long as free speech is defined with the caveat of having to pay the consequences for our actions, then I'd agree that slander and libel have little to do with freedom of speech.

On the other hand, I guess I'm tentative in regards to giving 'harm' a narrow definition. Does 'harm' extend beyond immediate physical harm or the destruction of character, or is 'harm' defined more broadly to include other types of harm i.e. moral harm or indirect harm, such as a correlation between certain types of speech and the promotion of violent behavior? Or, what about a conservative definition, where free speech is more subordinate to preserving traditional social institutions?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Bradylama:
There should never be limits to freedom of speech, period.

Quote:

From what I know of cases involving the Turner Diaries, and rock & roll censorship cases, there's never been a long-standing legislation against "indirect harm" because the writer is not considered responsible for the actions of the consumer of their literature or art.

You seem interested in law. Are you a law student?

Which are we discussing: what the law is or what the law ought to be? The existence of case law against alternate definitions of harm seems to address a different question than the one that we were previously discussing, mainly, what limits, if any, should be placed on free speech? The existence of a law does not necessarily establish the existence of an "ought" or a "should".

Most amazing jew boots