Xanthippa's Chamberpot

It is important – when embarking upon a long and convoluted description of something – to make sure that everyone following the discussion has a common understanding of what is being discussed.  This may sound fatuous, but – it is very common for people to use one word in several ways, to have a very different understanding of a principle or concept from what the speaker has.  Such a discussion will not be productive…

So, I would like to start by explaining what I mean by some of the words and concepts which I plan to bring into focus.

This post will continue to be updated as more posts are added.

Freedoms vs. Accomodations

Absolute freedom and the necessity to accomodate others if we wish to interact with them.  ‘Free Speech’ is the means by which we can arrive at a workable balance.

What does ‘Freedom of Speech’ mean?

This is just a clarification of what is meant by these words in the context of this discussion.

The origin and nature of human rights

This most excellent YouTube video (1st of 5-part series) by StopAndLook.  It contrasts the view that rights are inherent to the individual vs the view that rights are given to people by the state.  This results in very different attitudes (mindsets) between the state and citizen – and I contrast it to my post ‘Common law vs. civil law‘.  To further demonstrate the difference in attitudes, I also mention by ‘Tax cut’ vs. ‘tax rebate’  post.

This is part of the ‘Big Picture’ series.

‘Absolute Freedom’ can only be achieved by a person who is absolutely alone.  When a person has no others to interact with, they are free to do absolutely anything they wish – and they are absolutely responsible for the consequences of their actions.

What I mean by this is that if this person takes foolish or reckless actions – they are free to do so.  But, nobody will help them, as there is nobody else there.

Humans are social creatures – we build communities.  In order to get along, we agree to give up some of our freedoms willingly because we have made the judgment that it is in our best interest to do this.  So far so good.

Now, we have to find the balance between what we are willing to give up and what we are not willing to give up.  In other words, we have started a whole complex ‘freedom/accomodation’ balancing act.

After all, even if we give too many of our rights up willingly, make too many accomodations (or accomodate too far), we will feel oppressed.  (An example to illustrate this:  a young man willingly gives up his career to move into a different area because he wishes to be with the woman he loves.  Even though this decision was done willingly and happily, over time, he may regret the lost opportunities and begin to resent the woman he loves…  It may not even be a conscious thing – but it could fester, eventually put a strain on the relationship.)  

Obviously, this balance between one’s freedoms on the one hand and willingness to accomodate the community is not the same for every person…  Which is exactly why we have to be able to talk about it – openly and without fear. 

It is only through open and honest discourse that we can re-balance ‘freedoms’ versus ‘accomodations’.   And it is only by voicing our concerns that we can realize that the current ‘balance’ is oppressive.  Every society changes and continuously evolves – and as it does, this re-balancing will be necessary!

This cannot be accomplished without the freedom of each and every person to speak their mind, openly and without fear.  Therefore, I think the most fundamental freedom – the one which is key in maintaining and re-balancing all the other ones, is the Freedom of Speech.

This is part of the ‘Big Picture’ series.

Each and every person must be free to speak their mind, seriously or in jest, regardless of who they are or what their ideas are.  I am fully willing to accept that spreading falsehoods or breaking confidentiality agreements can and should be prosecuted in civil court – that is the appropriate and necessary consequence  of this right to speak freely.  However, the key here it that is is actionable by the injured party, in civil court – not by anyone else, anywhere. 

There is a second part to this ‘freedom of speech issue’ – every person ought to have ‘freedom of speech’ on both the output and the input side, so to speak.  The ‘input side’, of course, is the ‘access to other people’s speech’.  Because, if a country were to allow each and every citizen to speak freely – but only in sound-proof cells where nobody can hear their voice – the citizens may be able to say what they wish, but it is not ‘freedom of speech’.

So, in my definition, ‘freedom of speech’ also includes the ‘freedom to be heard’ and perhaps most importantly the ‘freedom to hear others’ – regardless of what they may say.  As in, I get to choose whom I listen to – nobody else may make that choice for me!!!  To me, this is an essential component of ‘freedom of speech’.

Of course, because speech is the means of re-balancing freedoms vs. accomodations, those who wish to control the way a society evolves will allways seek to control speech!