Justifiable reasons for limiting Freedom Of Speech

The truth is, you either have free speech, or you don't. And by that I don't mean 'I support free speech but there should be exceptions for when...', I mean absolute, say whatever you want free speech. That is what I believe in.

Do you believe there should be no legal consequences for a company publishing lies about its rivals to drive down their share prices?*

Or someone copying the writings of others wholesale for profit?

Or someone hoaxing the emergency services?

It's all freedom speech isn't it?*

The Constitution gave you the right to own slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment took that right away. What makes you so sure that some rights are 'god-given birthrights' while you're happy for others to be taken away?

People should be allowed to do those things, but they have to face the consequences. As in the company would have to compensate the other company for its losses, a fine for the hoaxer of the emergency services, etc.

I refuse to believe you don't get this. I'm getting tired of answering questions with the same answer.

Also, I don't accept that people through time have had a very different view of very basic human rightI bet if you sat anyone from any time down and asked them to name 3 rights they could be granted they would come up with something close to what we would say today.

Where does God grant this right? I have no idea what your asking.

The truth is, you either have free speech, or you don't. And by that I don't mean 'I support free speech but there should be exceptions for when...', I mean absolute, say whatever you want free speech. That is what I believe in.

Well you claimed that natural law was the only possible source of human rights, that's a rather bold claim and I should like to see what you base this claim on.
Good Bloke has already answered this pretty well but I thought I'd add a little bit.The concept of universal human rights, in it's modern iteration, including the rights which we are all broadly familliar with, was a product of the enlightenment and 17th century liberalism; and even then there are marked differences between what they considered to be human rights and a modern understanding of human rights. For instance, few were supporters of universal adult sufferage, and yet this is a key part of our present understanding of human rights (e.g Article 14 and Protocool 1 Article 3 ECHR; Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21).

Well you said that "he has a God given right to spout anything they want and if offending someone is the only way to say it then that's what they have to do", and I ask - how do we know that God has granted such a right?



But given without caveat, certain rights can be excersised in a manner which can lead to the right collapsing in on itself. For instance, if A uses their right to freedom of speech by inciting violence against B for advocating their own political posistion then B's right to freedom of speech has been de facto extinguished by A.

Slavery was not enumerated as one of our rights.

" We hold these truths to be self evident..."There's more than enough evidence to suggest that man needs no permission to express himself.

People should be allowed to do those things, but they have to face the consequences. As in the company would have to compensate the other company for its losses, a fine for the hoaxer of the emergency services, etc.

Well you claimed that natural law was the only possible source of human rights, that's a rather bold claim and I should like to see what you base this claim on.
Good Bloke has already answered this pretty well but I thought I'd add a little bit.The concept of universal human rights, in it's modern iteration, including the rights which we are all broadly familliar with, was a product of the enlightenment and 17th century liberalism; and even then there are marked differences between what they considered to be human rights and a modern understanding of human rights. For instance, few were supporters of universal adult sufferage, and yet this is a key part of our present understanding of human rights (e.g Article 14 and Protocool 1 Article 3 ECHR; Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21).

Well you said that "he has a God given right to spout anything they want and if offending someone is the only way to say it then that's what they have to do", and I ask - how do we know that God has granted such a right?



But given without caveat, certain rights can be excersised in a manner which can lead to the right collapsing in on itself. For instance, if A uses their right to freedom of speech by inciting violence against B for advocating their own political posistion then B's right to freedom of speech has been de facto extinguished by A.

Neither was the right not to be enslaved.

Three points:

(a) You keep repeating (including, as here, by quoting someone who says exactly the same thing) that it is obvious that men have the natural right to free speech. Such repetition does not advance your argument.

(b) We are actually discussing limits to the right to free speech . Is there an obvious natural limit to what you claim is an obvious natural right?

(c) What is a pollywog (other than a sailor who has not crossed the equator) and how does being descended from one reduce one's rights?

Any right given to you by a mythical fairy tale character is, by necessity, fictional.

It never ceases to amaze me that a western country with a secular constitution like that of the USA should have so many people who assign so much importance to Christianity, which is no less a superstition than the tooth fairy, goblins and Santa Claus.

ffs are we not past these "xtrmly clever remarks" in 2016

Slavery was legal in the U.S. at the time of the writing on the Declaration of Independence. It was legal in most of the world including England.

Nobody who's serious about understanding history would judge a man living in the 18th century by 21st. century ethics.

a). This is a statement of fact. It's a culmination to all the debate about human rights that had ever taken place. Don't be silly. Your repeated philosophical claim does not make something a fact.

b) My rights end where the other persons begin. Freedom of speech ends when it becomes verbal assault without just cause.

c) A pollywog is a small fish that is the larval stage of a frog. In my post that you refer to, I chose this fish to represent those people that take it a step further and believe a fish can evolve into modern man.
If they were fortunate enough to be born an American citizen they have equal protection of our constitution.

Not if there are people in the world who believe the laws that rule us should be guided by beliefs in said fictional characters.

You do realize that your view of life and a lot of what we've mentioned is the minority view in the world.

The atheist world view is very solidly taking over in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, leaving only backward, uneducated parts of the world in Africa and South America and the wilfully superstitious in North America to follow later.

Prior to the 50's or 60's there was no need for a caveat. Our institutions, our schools, churches, and even Hollywood entertainment, all helped to show everyone, in particular young people, such things as; all things in moderation, the other guys needs are as important as yours, even if you have very little always be charitable, etc. All different ways of saying, " Do unto others....."

Your taking words out of my mouth. I said natural law was the only source of
" immutable ", human rights.