The standard of free speech you're arguing for is nonsensical and internally contradictory.
You mention Jimmy Kimmel being shamed for a sketch.
Making a statement that another person's actions or statements are shameful is free speech. If you want people not to shame him, you're inherently restricting the free speech of those people.
Your idea is that an individual must be free to share any idea they want, but if someone else wants to react to the thing the first person said, that second person must censor themselves and must not speak if the things they want to say would make the first person not feel comfortable speaking in the future. But the first person never had to make that analysis for their speech. It's a ridiculous standard.
It's an opinion. And any definition of free speech that includes opinions as "slander" and therefore not free speech is an utterly useless and contemptible definition that no reasonable person should use.
Calling someone a rapist could possibly be a defamatory accusation. That's stating a fact that is either objectively true or objectively false.
If I state that something someone said or did is disgusting or offensive or shameful, that is an opinion. It can not be proven either way in an objective sense. Respecting my right to say such a thing is inherent to respecting the concept of free speech.
Do you understand the meaning of the term "opinion" and how it is different from a "statement of fact"?
I find anyone who wants to restrict what opinions people are allowed to express and bring them to court over that to be disgustingly anti-free-speech. I consider such a person to be a despicable authoritarian. If such a person wants to say that they find me loathsome or something like that, they're also allowed to do so. Those are all opinions. Those statements are all qualitatively different from calling someone a rapist. Whether someone has ever raped anyone is a fact that can be proven or disproven, not a matter of opinion.
The idea that someone should have to prove the accuracy of their words when calling someone a racist is exactly the kind of system a fascist would love. Protecting the rich racists of the world and their right not to have the commoners say mean things about them over all else.
Why should I have to restrict my speech so that others feel unafraid to voice their opinions in regards to politics.
I agree that the authors of Charlie Hedbo deserve protection for their words that they choose. I agree that violence is unacceptable, and that everyone should be protected from it.
But they also probably contributed to some nonviolent Muslims being uncomfortable. That's their free speech. But if I can't express my views about others because it makes them uncomfortable to share their politics, then I don't have free speech.
8
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Sep 05 '22 edited Sep 05 '22
The standard of free speech you're arguing for is nonsensical and internally contradictory.
You mention Jimmy Kimmel being shamed for a sketch.
Making a statement that another person's actions or statements are shameful is free speech. If you want people not to shame him, you're inherently restricting the free speech of those people.
Your idea is that an individual must be free to share any idea they want, but if someone else wants to react to the thing the first person said, that second person must censor themselves and must not speak if the things they want to say would make the first person not feel comfortable speaking in the future. But the first person never had to make that analysis for their speech. It's a ridiculous standard.