Political Theory

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

Fool on the Hill — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 02:05:19 GMT

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

~ Hans Hermann Hoppe

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

Neodoxy — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:49:12 GMT

1. Who are the "content mafia"?

2. How exactly do you intend to have anyone produce any material in the absence of property?

3. How is it that the content monopoly is "silencing everybody" and from whence do they obtain this power, with or without intellectual property?

4. If I own my own property, and on it I can say what I like whenever I like, and no one is allowed to stop me from doing so, and I'm allowed to print or publish whatever I am capable of, be it from my own property or what others allow me to do, then how exactly is freedom of speech restricted beyond how it is necessarily restricted due to scarcity?

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

LibertarianMarxist — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:57:55 GMT

Property and freedom of speech are mutually exclusive. Property is a very effective tool to censor everybody. Just look at the copyright wars the content mafia is waging on all people. Their "intellectual property" enables them to silence everybody.

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

eliotn — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:18:15 GMT

"I understand the right on property.

Person A prohibits debates on politics/religion inside his house.

But, isn't it oppression on freedom of speech and fascism itself?

How can we justify that right on property should be superior to right on freedom of speech?"

Person A is not oppressing you, but is merely setting up a contract: please don't debate inside my house.

The answer ecause liberterians do not support an absolute right of freedom of speech, but rather property rights. Thus, freedom of speech is recast as a property right. Fully supporting property rights or an absolute right to freedom of speech is contradictiory.

I recommend reading this article to get a sense of the liberterian stance, as rothbard addresses the question of freedom of speech quite well here, including a discussion of the famous "fire in a theatre" example.

http://mises.org/daily/2569

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

LandJ — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:11:25 GMT

I understand the right on property.

Person A prohibits debates on politics/religion inside his house.

But, isn't it oppression on freedom of speech and fascism itself?

How can we justify that right on property should be superior to right on freedom of speech?

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:30:57 GMT

Rothbard addressed this in For a new liberty.

Simply put no.

Im thinking that youre thinking about shouting in a theatre and disturbing people, in which case it would not be a matter of free speech, but a matter of private property rights and voluntary contract.

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

LandJ — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:50:33 GMT

Thus, according to the current world, in Case 2 although the flag is mine, since I am standing on a state-owned street, government should punish me if I will burn the flag.

-------------------------

In USA flag burning is legal. According to this US legislation , is it allowed to burn my flag standing on state-owned place?

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

cab21 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:41:43 GMT

what would the ban law be? what consequences would the law have?

i don't think criminal activity is fair game for speech, such as advirtising a murder for hire business or a ad looking for a murder for hire business

public murder for hire is not really worse than a private murder for hire. neither are good.

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

Phi est aureum — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:36:03 GMT

In that case:

I do not agree with the notion of public property (or communistic property). It is a weird, contradictory usage of the word "property" as I know it. Therefore, I believe you can do what you like to your own property on your own property.

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

LandJ — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:03:25 GMT

* When I write "Should I obey?", in fact I am asking you if you agree or disagree with the government ban law, in each case that stated.....in our current world

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

Phi est aureum — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:48:34 GMT

The fact is, although libertarians believe in full property rights and believe the state (and therefore, anything it says or does) is unjust and should be rightfully of no force, in our current system, the state is superior to all things. You don't even own your self. The state is sovereign over all. This is why we (libertarians) desire a free society.

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

cab21 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:47:30 GMT

it's up to you. some abstract superiority will not save you from the consequences of your actions.

how libertarian is is to threaten others?

what's up with the desire to stand in public streets and wave your genitals?

public property, public laws, you can find a public place without certain laws, you can find a private place to do it as well

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

LandJ — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:17:56 GMT

I am talking about our current world, where there are still "public" properties...

Case 1: My flag, my house. Can I burn it? Yes

Case 2: My flag. I am standing on a state-owned street. Government bans burning flag. Should I obey or my property right on flag is superior, thus I can burn it?

Case 3: My body, my property. I am standing on a state-owned street. Government bans public nudity. Should I obey or my property right on my body is superior, thus I can wave my genitals?

Case 4: My body, my voice, my property. So, I have the right to speak freely. But I am standing on state-owned street. Government bans expressing Libertarian ideas, for example. Should I obey or the property right on my ideas, thought and speech is superior?

Case 5: Threaten/defame a specific person X or a group, like Communists. I am in my house. Government bans threat/defamation. Should I obey?

Case 6: The same as Case 5, but I am standing on a state-owned street and government again bans defamation/threat. Should I obey?

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

John Ess — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:22:24 GMT

I think you should limited to a certain number of characters, like twitter.

Re: Should Freedom of Speech and Expression have limits?

bloomj31 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:16:20 GMT

I would say yes but I've rarely encountered a case of speech or other expression where I felt so offended that I thought the speaker/expresser should be arrested.