surreptitious57 wrote:
As one who believes in absolute free speech, I cannot condone the banning of any word or term. I can understand the motivation of such intention, but it is ultimately wrong. It is ultimately wrong for a number of reasons, not least being that it is open to subjective interpretation. It is also wrong because those who seek to prohibit it may be doing so for ulterior purposes, but even if they are genuinely altruistic, it is still wrong. It is actually in principle, a greater injustice to ban, than not to ban.
Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights we possess as humans. We relinquish it at our peril. No one has a right not be offended. However just because one has the right to exercise absolute free speech, does not automatically mean that it should be so. For with rights come responsibilities. So while I defend to the death the right of anyone to say anything, no matter what, it is wise to self censor and exercise caution also.
One of the reasons why absolute free speech is not concerned with subjective emotional interpretation
vis a vis the moral validity of a particular view, is because she, [yes, I describe her as so] has zero concept of this. It is not arrogance or indifference therefore, but ignorance. But a necessary one in this case. For it not to be would severly compromise the principle. So
all she is concerned with is equality of representation. She makes no distinction beyond that. In that respect, she functions the same as justice does. Only humans apply subjective interpretation. But absolute free speech has no such reference point. All opinions are equally valid, far as she is concerned. Besides, leaving it to humans is not very responsible, given their capacity for ulterior motive.
The Americans have this wonderful thing called
The First Amendment.You might have heard of it. Now it is not perfect, but nevertheless, it protects and incubates the spoken and written word from those who may wish to deny it, merely because they happen to disagree with it on particular occasion. Of course, there are exceptions. As I said, it is not perfect. Nevertheless. The idea that words should be protected, that what one says or writes, should be an inalienable right, and that those with ulterior motive, should not seek to take that away. Those with power and wealth should not deny the right of self expression to those without, irrespective of the moral validity or otherwise of what they are saying. What a beautiful thing that is. Indeed so beautiful is it, that it is something worth dying for.
It protects Larry Flynt. It protects Shirley Phelps. It protects Charles Barron. And so it should, so it should. It also protects Rebecca Watson and Ophelia Benson and Amy Roth and P Z, and so it should, too. But even more than
The First Amendment, there is absolute free speech herself, and her protection is a bit more inclusive. She protects everyone and anyone. She protects racists and misogynists and homophobes. She protects paedophiles and terrorists. Indeed, there isn't anyone she doesn't protect. And before you say, that nowhere in the world is absolute free speech actually practised, I know, I know. But that is no reason however why it should not be. And I for one certainly do believe in it. It is indeed a beautiful and wonderful thing. We abuse it at our peril.
