There's no right to advocate for oppression, and every right to advocate against it such as calling for the abolition of a state based on slavery (e.g., the Confederacy) or ethnic cleansing (Israel)
Thank you for the thought provoking examination, John. So what would your version of the First Amendment look like? How would unjust speech be policed in a way that didn’t do more harm than good in the society we currently have?
I think the answer to your question is for the local assembly of egalitarians (as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/genuine-democracy-what-is-it ) to make the appropriate judgment calls based on the principle that there is no right to do anything that strengthens those who aim to commit unjust oppression. There is no better authority to make this judgment call. If the local assembly of egalitarians makes a poor decision, well, that's unfortunate but there is no better way of making such decisions. What do you think?
Good discussion John of an iconic idea: "free speech." I accept your distinctions. I think back to the Rwanda episode of the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis back in 1990's?? Just like in Germany in Nazi era, there was a radio announcer who for a couple of months in the run up to the slaughter, made deprecatory statements about the Hutus calling them "cockroaches" and what not, to stir up the vigilante groups that conducted the murder. I wonder if that radio announcer was ever arrested. To be clear though, I know that many Hutus were killed along with Tutsi, and the Hutus that were killed were politically opposed to murdering fellow Rwandans. This situation is complicated of course, and I don't fully grasp the details of what happened (the French stood by and let the slaughter occur without intervention??) but I accept that some sick mass murder was conducted against Tutsi, a tribe the Brits imported, I think, to hold administrative positions in the colonial government, which bred acrimony between one group of haves against the other group of have nots). But I see your point.
Freedom of speech is like freedom of religion. It's necessary but it can't be absolute. Certain well defined restrictions are necessary. I believe its mostly Government speech and corporate speech that needs to be restricted. There is no right to speech intended to incite violence, slander people or commit fraud or false advertising or for the State to promote war propaganda to its own citizens.
I'm not sure why you used the word "seem." I thought I made it crystal clear that some speech has no right to be expressed and in some circumstances should indeed be suppressed.
Thank you for the thought provoking examination, John. So what would your version of the First Amendment look like? How would unjust speech be policed in a way that didn’t do more harm than good in the society we currently have?
I think the answer to your question is for the local assembly of egalitarians (as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/genuine-democracy-what-is-it ) to make the appropriate judgment calls based on the principle that there is no right to do anything that strengthens those who aim to commit unjust oppression. There is no better authority to make this judgment call. If the local assembly of egalitarians makes a poor decision, well, that's unfortunate but there is no better way of making such decisions. What do you think?
Good discussion John of an iconic idea: "free speech." I accept your distinctions. I think back to the Rwanda episode of the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis back in 1990's?? Just like in Germany in Nazi era, there was a radio announcer who for a couple of months in the run up to the slaughter, made deprecatory statements about the Hutus calling them "cockroaches" and what not, to stir up the vigilante groups that conducted the murder. I wonder if that radio announcer was ever arrested. To be clear though, I know that many Hutus were killed along with Tutsi, and the Hutus that were killed were politically opposed to murdering fellow Rwandans. This situation is complicated of course, and I don't fully grasp the details of what happened (the French stood by and let the slaughter occur without intervention??) but I accept that some sick mass murder was conducted against Tutsi, a tribe the Brits imported, I think, to hold administrative positions in the colonial government, which bred acrimony between one group of haves against the other group of have nots). But I see your point.
Thank you.
Freedom of speech is like freedom of religion. It's necessary but it can't be absolute. Certain well defined restrictions are necessary. I believe its mostly Government speech and corporate speech that needs to be restricted. There is no right to speech intended to incite violence, slander people or commit fraud or false advertising or for the State to promote war propaganda to its own citizens.
You seem to be in favor of speech suppression.
I'm not sure why you used the word "seem." I thought I made it crystal clear that some speech has no right to be expressed and in some circumstances should indeed be suppressed.