Gregory's Server
@drq that's a definition of free speech constructed in terms of state-public power imbalance.
Now abstract from informal narrative nuances such as people, state and legality, define it in terms of general power struggle over narrative, to arrive at a natural conclusion of complete impossibility of its existence due to logical contradiction. A logical contradiction due to Newton's Flaming Laser Sword specifically.
@nycta And why the hell would I do that?
I'm not a philosophical idealist. I don't believe in "pure abstractions", sorry. Freedom of speech is an idea. Ideas are tools. Tools are only as good as they are applicable to certain context.
We have a societal context where we have a power imbalance between the people and the overarching entity we call the state. Freedom of speech is a tool made to balance the scale, in order to prevent tyranny. That's it. If there was no such imbalance, there would have been no need to protect such idea. It would have been just the state of things. Or, as one famous Alternian thinker once said - "HUMANS HAVE A WORD FOR THAT?"
Pure abstractions, if they even do exist, have no consequence, and they gain those only applied to a context, therefore losing their purity and becoming leaky. So...
@nycta And why the hell would I do that?
I'm not a philosophical idealist. I don't believe in "pure abstractions", sorry. Freedom of speech is an idea. Ideas are tools. Tools are only as good as they are applicable to certain context.
We have a societal context where we have a power imbalance between the people and the overarching entity we call the state. Freedom of speech is a tool made to balance the scale, in order to prevent tyranny. That's it. If there was no such imbalance, there would have...