Re:Is America having second thoughts about free speech?
by nine_k on Sunday February 11, 2018 @03:43PM
(#16354690)
"Free speech" is not about amplification, but about lack of forced attenuation. That is, publicly voicing an opinion should not be a crime.
It is pretty easy to connect to the freedom of religion. The original settlements in America were of various Christian sects persecuted in England and Europe. Since they were various, they had to produce a code of peaceful coexistence. It was set in stone in the US Constitution and the 1st amendment to it: no state-enforced religion and free speech.
As of late, this setup is deteriorating, both in Europe (where it never was a sacred part), and in the US. That same (quasi-)religion that gave us "political correctness" is apparently taking over the variety of other beliefs, obviating the need of a peace pact that a free speech provision is.
Fortunately, it's not (yet) strong enough to actually repeal it, but enough to stymie it here and there, for the sake of "social peace" or "security". The latter case is something that one of the founding fathers expressly warned about: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But people seem to deeply discount any future problems, compared to an immediate gain (in power) at hand.
It is pretty easy to connect to the freedom of religion. The original settlements in America were of various Christian sects persecuted in England and Europe. Since they were various, they had to produce a code of peaceful coexistence. It was set in stone in the US Constitution and the 1st amendment to it: no state-enforced religion and free speech.
As of late, this setup is deteriorating, both in Europe (where it never was a sacred part), and in the US. That same (quasi-)religion that gave us "political correctness" is apparently taking over the variety of other beliefs, obviating the need of a peace pact that a free speech provision is.
Fortunately, it's not (yet) strong enough to actually repeal it, but enough to stymie it here and there, for the sake of "social peace" or "security". The latter case is something that one of the founding fathers expressly warned about: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But people seem to deeply discount any future problems, compared to an immediate gain (in power) at hand.