I don't really care about the Trump part, hence I was pointing out the error in your argument against the power of speech, on which:

I assure you I have focussed on those topics, and long before you “invited” me to do it. So now what? — NOS4A2

So now could you show some evidence of it?

We have free speech, there is no demon or angel on our shoulders making us say or withold this or that. What we don't have is freedom from the consequences of what we say. — baker

That’s not quite true. If I want to say specific things my ability to do so is limited, not entirely restricted, but limited nonetheless. Only certain things are allowed on major social media sites, TV, radio, newspapers, articles, etc. If my speech doesn’t fit their imposed restrictions it will not be published, or otherwise available for viewing. Thereby restricting my options for where I can go to express these opinions freely.

So it isn’t just that if I say X there will be negative consequences, it’s that I can only say X privately, because virtually no public forum will allow it to be seen/heard en masse.

The problem is conferring power to speech is much like conferring power to kings; the only power they have is what society gives them. Speech possesses no actual, physical power, insofar it lacks the capacity to transfer more energy than any other sound from the mouth. — NOS4A2

That’s not true. Those who’ve suffered from emotional/psychological trauma/abuse will beg to differ. I do not believe that we have control over our emotional reaction to words, and it should be clearly obvious that our particular emotional states are quite often strongly correlated with our actions. So words do indeed have power over our emotional states, which then affects our actions. The exact extent of this affect is unclear, but I don’t think it’s existence can be reasonably denied.

:100: :fire: :up:

Of course you have the freedom to say what you want. But others have the freedom not to accomodate you.
Your freedom of speech doesn't obligate others to provide the material means for your speech (tv channel, radio station, publishing books and magazines, etc.). Those material means you need to fund yourself.

Why should they accomodate you? Can you explain?

So now could you show some evidence of it?

I can try. What would you like me to argue or defend?

What would you like me to argue or defend? — NOS4A2

For the third time (and I don't think the last), your claim of:

The overestimation of the power of speech — NOS4A2

Why should they accomodate you? Can you explain? — baker

So, the way I view things is that absolute freedom is the default position, and from there any laws, restrictions, etc. need to be justified. I see it the same way in this case. Whichever media outlet starts with absolute freedom of speech, and then needs to justify their reasons for excluding certain types of speech.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s what happens in the real world. Instead, it seems like every outlet is more focused on pushing some ideological agenda, and would rather be a massive echo chamber. We see where this type of approach has gotten us. The increasing polarization and distrust in the media in general has led to a distrust in facts and truth itself. But anyway, that’s enough rambling. The point is that there is now very few, or perhaps no, outlets for true free expression of ideas. Perhaps the idea of relatively unbiased news/media outlets is a myth, I don’t know, but there certainly don’t seem to be any now.

So, the way I view things is that absolute freedom is the default position, and from there any laws, restrictions, etc. need to be justified. I see it the same way in this case. Whichever media outlet starts with absolute freedom of speech, and then needs to justify their reasons for excluding certain types of speech. — Pinprick

Have there ever been any media outlets that started with absolute freedom of speech?

To the best of my knowledge, all media outlets have always been the means for promoting a particular ideology. That they characterize themselves with epithets like "the only news outlet interested in telling the truth" or that they are "defenders of free speech" is just part of their ideology.

@NOS4A2 Allan Bloom on Leo Strauss:

“...Strauss was acutely aware of the abuses to which the public expression of philosophy is subject. Philosophy is dangerous for it must always call everything into question while in politics not everything can be called into question. The peculiar horror of modern tyranny has been its alliance with perverted philosophy. Strauss...was susceptible to...the rhetoric of Rousseau and Nietzsche, but he also saw to what extent the passions they aroused and the deceptive sense of understanding they engendered could damage the cause of decency as well as that of philosophy. Aristotle or Maimonides could never provide the inspiration or the justification for a tyrant. They were no less radical, but their voices were softer and attracted less dangerous passions while abandoning excessive hopes. Rousseau was not the cause of the Terror, nor Nietzsche of the Nazis, but there was something in what they said and the way they said it which made it possible for them to be misinterpreted in certain politically relevant ways. Strauss, WITH HIS RESPECT FOR SPEECH AND ITS POWER, believed that men are responsible for what they say...”

“Italics” mine.

The philosophers have shown, more even than the poets and statesmen, that speech has power. This power is not directly physical in nature, but it has physical consequences far beyond the scope of its original intention.

What if one's free speech is another person's broken record?

New speech should be accorded free speech. How about repetitive speech? Ad infinitum?

Have there ever been any media outlets that started with absolute freedom of speech? — baker

I really don’t know, but I think theoretically (philosophically?) the default position is the state of nature, meaning only the restrictions imposed by nature apply (physical limitations basically). Then in an effort to domesticate ourselves we create self-imposed restrictions. These restrictions now seem to be taken as a given, a starting point, rather than something that requires justification. Do you think restricting speech needs to be justified?

Do you think restricting speech needs to be justified? — Pinprick

Do you think restricting who can enter your home needs to be justified?

Do you think restricting speech needs to be justified?— Pinprick


Do you think restricting who can enter your home needs to be justified?

Why do people use irrelevant extreme analogies to try to prove a dubious point.
Freespeech is in no way similiar to having a door on your house.
A conversation is not a private house.

See @Protagoras’s reply…

Freespeech is in no way similiar to having a door on your house.
A conversation is not a private house. — Protagoras

Owning a media outlet is similar to owning a house. You don't let just anyone in.

@baker
Not if you hold that your country has a free press.

Anyone with the money to posses a printing press (or other media outlet) has "freedom of the press". And this is also pretty much the extent of the meaning of "freedom of the press".

@baker
Many countries claim freedom of speech and press and yet censor freespeech.
So I need a printing press to have free speech?

Many countries claim freedom of speech and press and yet censor freespeech. — Protagoras

Because the government's freedom of speech trumps your freedom of speech.

So I need a printing press to have free speech?

Yes, or pen and paper, as the case may be.

@baker
So if its that restricted its
not freespeech then is it.

We don't want the state to appear undemocratic now, do we? That would be so socialist. So we use fancy terms we don't mean.

Philosophers have not shown, but surely some have said, that speech has power. But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? This is action at a distance, or worse, magic and sorcery, and without a viable theory to explain how speech can manipulate matter that’s the kind of superstition it shall remain. It’s clear to me, though, that the only physical energy powerful enough to set those events into action began and ended within the individuals who acted them out.

At least Bloom was reasonable enough to say that Rousseau and Nietzsche did not cause the horrors that followed them.

Philosophers have not shown, but surely some have said, that speech has power. But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? This is action at a distance, or worse, magic and sorcery, and without a viable theory to explain how speech can manipulate matter that’s the kind of superstition it shall remain. — NOS4A2

Yet here you are, talking relying on the power of speech.

But then again, hot air lifts baloons!

I'm afraid you're equivocating between my ability to speak and the power of speech.

Then that's what you fear. Look, words made you do it!

I don't fear equivocation. It says more about you than it does about me.

I don't fear equivocation. — NOS4A2

No, you just use empty filler phrases.

It says more about you than it does about me.

Again, with all the words! Accomplishing things!

@baker
The state has never been democratic. Its always been champagne socialism.

Political double speak,the bread and butter of the media and politicians.

Freespeech,another rich man's euphemism and carrot.

Philosophers have not shown, but surely some have said, that speech has power. But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? — NOS4A2

It is physical. Spoken words are heard via physical vibrations. Written words are obviously written on something physical. BTW, are you intentionally leaving my post regarding emotional abuse unanswered?