By definition, that's not free.
That's like saying that Texas is the best state in the United States except Colorado, Washington, and Nebraska. The previous statement contradicts itself. Either Texas is the best, or one of the other three states is the best. Texas cannot be both the best and be bettered by 3 other states.
Nonsense. Freedoms are never unlimited. I can't think of any that would even be unlimited in idealistic worlds like software licensing. Can you name any?
No country with 'freedom of speech' does not define acceptable and unacceptable.
Unrestricted freedom is anarchy. Give me ultimate freedom of speech and I'll stand outside your house with a megaphone calling your family illegitimate so you can't sleep. (Ok I won't, but I promise you people will)
I hereby declare that criticism of the current government's policy dealing with rape and rape victims to be harassing rape victims and will be treated as such.
I'm not sure how you jumped from free speech, to harassing rape victims. Last I checked, harassment requires something more than just freely speaking an opinion once or twice.
IMO, freedom of speech refers to content, not necessarily delivery. There really seems to be three types of speech. Private (home), subscribed (church, book, TV show), broadcast (commercial, billboard sign, office cooler, email inbox)). The difference being how wide the audience, and how much freedom they have in listening to you.
The problem IMO is ‘the internet’ mixes the three basic types of speech. Things that feel private often don't end up that way.
PS: A mortician making a book based on autopsy photos seems reasonable. But, sending those same photos to a parole officer or someone else you know less likely to be acceptable. Though in book form it is once again probably ok, same content different context.
I think I see where you're going, and you do raise a valid point. My comment was aimed more at the abrupt logical jump made by the user above, from free speech to rape harassment.
By that logic, no-where as freedom of speech, and it's highly unlikely that anywhere every will, since it will require abolishing many laws that many people desire (like medical privacy or copyright).
You ever notice how medical privacy always has the 'except as required by law'. It prevents them blabbing about it to your friends, but not to the government. Also, contracts would resolve this. You can restrict your speech per a voluntary contract (such as an NDA). The key difference here being a contract is voluntarily entered into while a law is enforced. If you want to work for the medical field, you'll have to enter into a contract to stay silent about key information.
> Also, contracts would resolve this. You can restrict your speech per a voluntary contract (such as an NDA)
Yes in theory. In practice too much of the population are bad at legal issues and would not ensure they get their doctor to sign a NDA and would be screwed.
>If freedom of speech is absolute, then it means that any contractual clause purporting to restrict it is void.
No it doesn't.
>In the same way that any contractual clause purporting to enslave a natural person, even with their consent, is still void.
Such a contract is banned because of how one-sided it would be. Even a contract for selling property can be overturned if it is too one-sided. The difference being is that there are many fair contracts for exchanging property while there are none for enslavement. Compare this to indenture servitude, where some variants are allowed, though they include some way to break away.
Consider that a person owning their own creations, something largely considered quite absolute, does not preclude them entering in a contract where such creations are owned by the other party.
The core difference here is that the government cannot punish you for information you gave or received. You can have a civil case for breaking a fair contract you consented to (and if court ordered damages are not paid, you can then be guilty of contempt of court).
