Show me one country where free speech has ever been absolute. At a minimum "fighting words" and libel/slander usually have criminal or civil penalties against them. Then there's stuff like IP law where reproducing certain speech can have civil or even criminal penalties.
Statements like "free speech must be absolute" are basically zero content because they don't engage with the nuance of the debate, but they sure sound good.
We most certainly don't, but it's an interesting thought exercise whether it's a better model than everything else we have seen so far. Of course, it asks for very different trade-offs. For instance, you should be willing to forgoe libel/slander laws and allow people to smear the shit out of each other. It means people will need to figure out for themselves whom to listen to, but honestly, I don't think the situation is any different today.
It also means scrutinising things like copyright and questioning whether they are a net value to society. These policies have since forever been driven by corporations to serve their own interests. There's good arguments to be made that their concerns about loss in revenue are largely overblown. You can implement policies that restrict monetisation of copyright content without putting restrictions on what individuals can express.
Of course these are fairly naive ideas, and there are likely many more problems we haven't touched here, but the point is that there are options. It is worth thinking about them because the alternative as we see doesn't seem to be working out. There's a trend around the world where countries are moving more and more towards authoritarianism. At the same time, the wealth gap is ever increasing and I don't think these two are unrelated. I think the common people are getting an overall raw deal on this planet and really need to think through what policies will benefit them most.
> For instance, you should be willing to forgoe libel/slander laws and allow people to smear the shit out of each other. It means people will need to figure out for themselves whom to listen to, but honestly, I don't think the situation is any different today.
Anyone who's had a conversation with someone who was relentlessly bullied should know this is how you increase suicide rates and/or mass shootings.
These are perspectives that you, personally, are comfortable with. I, however, am not. It would be unfair to advocate that myself, and many others, are subjected to what can be considered a living hell.
Statements like "free speech must be absolute" are basically zero content because they don't engage with the nuance of the debate, but they sure sound good.