Speak Freely, Unless it Bites the Hand that Feeds You

"The Drug Policy Alliance and several co-plaintiffs will make oral arguments next Wednesday, April 28 in a case that should bar the government from censoring those who criticize the “War on Drugs.” Two consolidated lawsuits make up the case, filed in February against the United States government and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), operator of the capital’s Metro system."

Free speech isn’t so free, I’d say. 

Via Jacob Sullum at Hit & Run.

Posted by on 04/28 at 08:23 AM

  1. “free speech” makes about as much sense as “free will”. (none)

    The fact is we don’t have “free” speech, nor has man ever had “free” speech.

    You can’t say whatever the hell you please and not expect there to be consequences for those expressions.

    You can’t scream “FIRE” in a crowded theater. You can’t falsely accuse someone of a crime or wrongdoing (i.e. Libel or Slander). You can’t run around naked in public and not expect anyone to look. You can’t divulge national (or corporate) secrets (espionage/treason).

    In short to believe that there are no consequences for expressing yourself (your words) is naivety to the extreme.

    Posted by  on  04/28  at  10:33 AM

  2. I don’t think I mentioned anything about there being consequences, or not being consequences, for one’s speech, within the above post.  Which of course there are.

    Posted by  on  04/28  at  11:02 AM

  3. Plus, at its base, the notion of free speech is the notion of political discourse and public dissention of government policies without fear of retribution or recourse. The analogy of screaming “fire” in a crowded theater is about as appropriate as comparing the price of dog food in China to hunting wascally wabbits in Montana. In short it doesn’t make sense.

    Posted by Daniel Medley  on  04/28  at  12:39 PM

  4. Consequence = “the Cost”

    John Venlet: I don’t think I mentioned anything about there being consequences, or not being consequences, for one’s speech, within the above post.  Which of course there are.

    Well if something has a Cost it can’t be “Free” (of Cost) at the same time, can it?

    Posted by  on  04/28  at  02:28 PM

  5. Daniel Medley: Plus, at its base, the notion of free speech is the notion of political discourse and public dissention of government policies without fear of retribution or recourse.

    When can you ever utter anything in public to which there are no consequences for the utterance?

    Daniel Medley: The analogy of screaming “fire” in a crowded theater is about as appropriate as comparing the price of dog food in China to hunting wascally wabbits in Montana. In short it doesn’t make sense.

    Maybe you don’t want it to make sense?

    Maybe it is more beneficial in your perception to deny that there are always conseqeunces for action?

    Posted by  on  04/28  at  02:31 PM

  6. I should have qualified without fear of retribution or recourse from government.

    About your claim that I may not want it to make sense: uh, no, just doesn’t make sense, Zen Master. 

    Posted by Daniel Medley  on  04/28  at  05:53 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: It'd Be Cheaper to Be a Mortgage Broker

Previous entry: So Do I

<< Back to main