You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Semi-rhetorical questions (I do not accuse Jones of what follows, just throwing this up to consider what free speech absolutism should entail): what do think of rules about defamation or libel/slander? Or how should people be allowed to respond to written or verbal threats? What counts as speech?
Society has broadly accepted some amount of punishment or retribution for "improper" speech or lying (see also perjury, abetting, entrapment, harassment, disturbing the peace, misleading business partners or investors). I think the burden of proof might be on 'our' end to counteract some or all rules against badspeak.
I think that libel and slander laws are fine as they are.
The distinction that I draw is in the mind of the person communicating. The legal term is "mens rea" if you want to look it up.
If I know that something is a lie - I know it for a fact - but I say it anyway - I knowingly communicate a lie - AND ALSO I do this with the motive of materially harming you - "materially" meaning that I intend to destroy your business through repetitional damage, for example ...
... then the issue at hand is NOT the speech. Then the issue is the "mens rea" - the "guilty mind" - and the motive to cause harm.
And I think (hope, anyway) that that's what libel and slander laws address.
So, I'll give an example of something that must be protected, for society to be free, vs. something that should be prosecuted:
Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping her. I should be allowed to believe Ford. For whatever reason, on whatever basis, I should be allowed to have that thought. I should also be allowed to believe Kavanaugh, for whatever reason or reasons are compelling to me.
So, if I go around saying, "Kavanaugh is a rapist!" that must be protected speech. It I go around saying, "Ford is a liar" that must be protected too ...because my right to think that must be protected.
On the other hand, if Ford knows for a fact that what she's saying is a lie, and her motive (especially in waiting until he was nominated to the supreme court) is specifically to materially harm him, then she should be prosecuted ...but not for her speech. She should be prosecuted for lying with that specific motive.
So, I think a person must be allowed to think and say whatever they truly believe ...even if they're wrong. If you really believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist, or your really believe that Bush did 911, or you really believe that Trump is hitler, you must be allowed to think and say it.
But if you don't actually believe, but you say it anyway AND your motive is to materially harm (not emotionally, but materially) then I think you should face financial repercussions.
Semi-rhetorical questions (I do not accuse Jones of what follows, just throwing this up to consider what free speech absolutism should entail): what do think of rules about defamation or libel/slander? Or how should people be allowed to respond to written or verbal threats? What counts as speech?
Society has broadly accepted some amount of punishment or retribution for "improper" speech or lying (see also perjury, abetting, entrapment, harassment, disturbing the peace, misleading business partners or investors). I think the burden of proof might be on 'our' end to counteract some or all rules against badspeak.
I think that libel and slander laws are fine as they are.
The distinction that I draw is in the mind of the person communicating. The legal term is "mens rea" if you want to look it up.
If I know that something is a lie - I know it for a fact - but I say it anyway - I knowingly communicate a lie - AND ALSO I do this with the motive of materially harming you - "materially" meaning that I intend to destroy your business through repetitional damage, for example ...
... then the issue at hand is NOT the speech. Then the issue is the "mens rea" - the "guilty mind" - and the motive to cause harm.
And I think (hope, anyway) that that's what libel and slander laws address.
So, I'll give an example of something that must be protected, for society to be free, vs. something that should be prosecuted:
Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping her. I should be allowed to believe Ford. For whatever reason, on whatever basis, I should be allowed to have that thought. I should also be allowed to believe Kavanaugh, for whatever reason or reasons are compelling to me.
So, if I go around saying, "Kavanaugh is a rapist!" that must be protected speech. It I go around saying, "Ford is a liar" that must be protected too ...because my right to think that must be protected.
On the other hand, if Ford knows for a fact that what she's saying is a lie, and her motive (especially in waiting until he was nominated to the supreme court) is specifically to materially harm him, then she should be prosecuted ...but not for her speech. She should be prosecuted for lying with that specific motive.
So, I think a person must be allowed to think and say whatever they truly believe ...even if they're wrong. If you really believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist, or your really believe that Bush did 911, or you really believe that Trump is hitler, you must be allowed to think and say it.
But if you don't actually believe, but you say it anyway AND your motive is to materially harm (not emotionally, but materially) then I think you should face financial repercussions.