Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist.
>I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position
I do. It's what makes America great. Erosions like that jewish law are slowly weakening that.
You should be allowed to say whatever you want about White people, straight people, men, Christians, etc. and I should be able to say whatever I want about jews.
You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity.
Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence
But I submit that given our current state of affairs as a species, I don’t think we could handle that “yes”.
That “yes” coexisting in a harmonious world that is safe and sound would require that speech that incites violence or vandalism isn’t acted upon, for example. That the market could and would reliably be able to detect and counter deceitful manipulation. That somehow the market would be able to do the same with lies about a product or service.
It also suggests abdicating accountability for when such a seemingly perfect system would fail and result in harm.
These things seem implausible in our current reality. A lack of accountability seems undesirable generally and is already something that we suffer enough.
Freedom of speech is absolutely not about freedom from consequences. Where and how did you ever get that idea?
Free speech means you can say anything you want, some very specific caveats aside, and you can't be prosecuted simply for saying them. But that doesn't mean you won't have to answer for what happens as a consequence.
As an example: You absolutely can go and make wild claims about your product to try and sell it, nobody can stop you from doing that. You absolutely can make bogus claims about someone, nobody can stop you from doing that either. However, you will be prosecuted for making false statements and defamation respectively by the people you harmed. Note what is prosecuted here: The effects of the false and perhaps even sinister nature of the statement, not the statement itself.
Maybe, maybe with an unwieldy amount of time the rubes would all die out as they administer snake oil to themselves and their families, the pyramid schemes all collapse under the weight of their inability to produce the results their funders sought, and the collective, unorganized and ungovernmented multitudes publicly shame and criticize those industry leaders who conducted research into the effects of their products, but decided instead to make some shit up to sell more.
Maybe more likely: as the divine wisdom of the heavenly free market dictates, a few really good liars get a massive foothold and build empires on it. And maybe in the truest American free market fashion, these opportunities to profit from fraud are available to everyone! Even if you’re not clever enough to build an empire, you can at least move state to state, lying, selling more slow-burn poison, all the while with the cops backing you up when the mob forms, because fraud and the affects of lying are as protected as saying something ignorant or mean.
Secondly, you're okay with someone inciting violence/vandalism/crimes, and people acting explicitly on that person's direction, as long as only the actual violence/vandalism/crime is punished?
If you also abolish the notion of intellectual property as well as trade secrets, both of which are severe limitations on free speech, then sure. Otherwise it's just another case of wanting free speech when it suits the company but wanting to restrict it when it doesn't.
> Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you?
Sure, as long as the actual violence and vandalism is harshly punished to discourage people from acting on falsehoods. The speech was never the real problem here.
You can’t undo that, not to mention it not illegal to fire someone because if you read some false facts in the paper
No True Scotsman.
> You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity.
... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with. There's no need to attack me specifically. I am talking about the wider pattern. Free Speech Absolutists exist as long as the speech they support is being oppressed. Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? Do you support speech that incites genocide?
Yes, some of those are crimes but I am not sure you'd care if you'd been attacked already. The damage is done.
Nope. If you support laws that censor criticism of israel you are not a free speech supporter, let alone an absolutist. The term has a very clear definition and it's the opposite of what the antisemitism law entails.
>... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with.
Did I say you were American? All of Europe and many parts of Asia are way worse when it comes to free speech.
>Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically?
Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine.
Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through.
Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions.
I'd argue that someone who has effectively control over some kind of mob riling them up is quite a bit more threatening than a "direct threat" if they know that mob contains people that will (or even just are very likely to) commit violence as a result of it: instead of making one direct threat, they generate multiple (indirect and possibility silent) ones.
