Freedom of speech is either freedom of speech or it isn't. If there is any single case in which your (or my) government can decide whether or not you get to say something, you do not have freedom of speech (obviously, cases involving government secrets are dealt with differently by every government whether they should be or not). The very idea that some points of view, no matter how stupid and objectionable, should inherantly be subject to censorship is the opposite of freedom of speech.
I understand where you coming from, but you're taking the phrase literally. The liberty of free speech has been defined and refined since around the 1600's. The concept of freedom of speech was created for a specific purpose. There is no such thing as absolute free speech, and nor will there ever be. It's a debate that's been going on for a very long time. Should freedom of speech give me the right to say that all Black people are lazy, claim welfare, are in gangs, sell crack etc. Well lets look at it objectively. Is there evidence to show that there isn't a single gainfully employed Black person? Of course there isn't. So why then should I be able to teach this view as if it's the truth? Now if that statement held true for X% of the Black population should I be allowed to say it? Of course you should, as long as you included that it was X% of the population. You are free to say whatever you want, as long as you have proof. Otherwise what you are doing is inciting hatred based on untruths. Or a current popular line of thinking and preaching amongst the far-right is the fact that all Muslims are terrorists. Is this the truth? Are 6 billion Muslims across the planet really terrorists? Of course they're not. So why should you be allowed to spread that information? Is lying and inciting prejudice and hate really freedom of speech? No, of course it isn't.
At the moment there is a collection of photographs documenting recent accounts of torture in Abu Ghraib prison. Some of the are pretty shocking, all of them pretty distasteful. They make the original ones that were released look PG-13 pictures. The government denies the torture and the mistreatment of prisoners in the prison. The photographs have been banned from publication in both the UK and the US. According to the governments they could "cause the soldiers to be seen in an unnecessarily negative light and cause animosity from the public to the armed forces". Is printing those pictures and telling the story of the torture freedom of speech? Yes. Is it anybodies particular version of the truth. Nope. It's pretty evident from the pictures as to what was going on. In fact, some of the actions in the pictures are so horrendous that the Australian press, the only ones willing to print the pictures, refused to publish a handful of them - instead choosing to describe them. Is the government banning those pictures denying someones right to freedom of speech? Yep, big time. The right to freedom of speech is the right to tell the truth, regardless of how disdainful, appaling or upsetting it might be.
See the difference?
QUOTE said:
In other words, your freedom of speech is always subject to the interpretation of some censor, whether it be the government, the courts, or the people. If what you have to say is unpopular, you shouldn't be able to say it. If the government and the courts say a lie is the truth, you're fucked.
No, because there's only one version of the truth. you can beat it, hide it, twist it, bury it or lock it up. At it's core though there is just the truth. If I said every Mexican in the USA is an illegal immigrant, would I be telling the truth? There's some far right nutters in America who would like you to believe that, but of course it's not the truth. Now if I said "X amount of Mexicans have been arrested and were illegal immigrants" and could show proof, that's telling the truth. The truth is the truth. There is no perception of it. If it's just a perception of the truth then you don't have all the facts at hand and further study should happen. If you have infallible evidence though, that's an entirely different story and nobody should have the right to stop you from saying nor censor what you say.
Take the Iraqi WMDs as another example. The governments started an invasion based on a lie. Should the right to freedom of speech have applied to that? Not in my opinion. Why should the government have been allowed to lie to justify an invasion? The people who revealed that there never was any WMDs in Iraq and the government knew that all along. Should the freedom of speech applied be to that? Of course, because it was the truth.
QUOTE
I'm not saying that the USA is any sort of example that the rest of the world should follow, I'm just saying that free is either free or it isn't, and if you have to get permission to express yourself you are not free by any definition. This applies to the US just as much as it applies to anyone else.
