"Free speech is a fundamental human right but it is not an absolute right'"

What absolute rubbish. A right is absolute. The person who said this, supposedly wanting to protect minorities, is a member of a minority himself, wanting the tail to wag the dog.

Freedom of speech may perhaps be the foundation of all other rights, but speaking of "rights" only makes sense once the recipient(s) of those rights agreed to enter into a contract with a given society, thereby exchanging rights with that society. Rights are therefore anything but absolute - they depend upon the nature of the contract and do not exist in the absence of such contract.

On the other hand, the foundation of all freedoms is the freedom to be left alone. If one is not interfered with in the first place, then what need have they for free speech and what right have they to demand that others hear them?

Hi Yuyutsu,

You make the interesting but debateable point that " .... If one is not interfered with in the first place, then what need have they for free speech and what right have they to demand that others hear them?"

Are you suggesting that if someone is left alone, they should not have a right to free speech ? Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. Surely, one does not have to be traded off for the other ? We can do our own thing, AND still have as much right to express ourselves as anybody else ? Isn't that what most of us do anyway ?

Check out Isaiah Berlin's "Positive and Negative Freedom", that might be useful.

Cheers,

Joe

I'm afraid I have to agree with Salman Rushdie, and freedom of expression can only be free if it includes the right to offend.

In some cultures something as inoffensive as remarking, you wife's quite a looker can get your throat cut!

In others not accepting a bedroom assignation with the host's wife can result in offence?

Apparently created as a remedy for a very tiny gene pool?

While one can bring passion to some ideas, it is better to try and remain civil, particularly when arguing against morons with moribund minds, whose greatest skill seems to say be able to say NO!?

IN ANY EVENT, ALL HUMAN PROGRESS SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME HAS ONLY BEEN MADE POSSIBLE, BY THE ROBUST EXCHANGE OF IDEAS! AND THE FREEDOM TO EXCHANGE THEM!
Rhrosty.

Dear Joe,

You understood me correctly.

The concept of free speech is born within societies.
If you and others agree to belong to the same society, then this agreement is give-and-take, providing certain rights along with certain obligations.

Specifically, the underlying purpose of free-speech (in public, I'm not talking about talking to yourself or to your family and friends who agree to hear you) is to allow you to scream: "I have been wronged". This is meaningful only within an agreement that includes the prohibition on certain behaviours (say taxing someone unfairly more than others; or failing to provide them with health-care while others get it; or arresting someone for something that was not illegal).

But if nobody interfered with you, then necessarily nobody wronged you, also you then have no agreement with anyone. Forcing others to hear you is a form of interference: other than having an agreement, what gives you a right to interfere with others?

Hi Yuyutsu,

I don't know how anyone can 'not be in society' - like it or not, we're all in our societies.

But even if somehow we weren't, we would still have the right - in both conditions - to express our opinions: in our own one-person society, we could express it to ourselves, and within the context of the surrounding society, one could express oneself without penalty.

Or are you suggesting that, having somehow exited and formed a one-person society, thereby we have no rights in the surrounding society, including the right to express oneself, i.e. to anyone else ? What law would we have broken ? What might be the penalty ? How could it be enforced, by the authorities in one society over the individual in the other hypothetical one ? Try it and see: nothing may happen to you :)

You're right: "Forcing others to hear you is a form of interference: other than having an agreement, what gives you a right to interfere with others?" The offence here is 'forcing', not merely engaging with others: in effect, being a public nuisance, or harassment. But even from the confines of your one-person society, you have the right to engage with others, to hear them and for them to hear you. There's no law against it.

Engaging in conversation, expressing one's opinions, is not wronging anybody, or interfering with them in any way. You're straining over gnats, Yuyutsu.

Joe