I am sorry for being late in reply. I didn't expect the topic will be approved this soon.
To
Steve3007
In your view, what does it mean for freedom of speech to be "logical"?
It should be expressed with reasoning, thoughts, explanation, questioning that can be proved right or wrong.
I disagree with the word "always" and I think even most ardent advocates of free speech probably would too. See the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" exemplar as a starting point.
I think phrase "free speech" doesn't fit perfectly with my notion of Freedom of speech. It sounds like anyone can talk any kind of rubbish without any reasoning, questioning, explanation etc.
How about the law, by the use of legal penalties, suppressing libel?
I think Law should uphold the truthfulness, logic, reasoning and everything that brings up the truth to the highest regards. Truth is sometimes very damaging to emotional well being of people for a short period, but afterwards it is helpful to reduce crime by making people understand over a period of time. Reducing crime is a duty of law. If Law itself protect crime and help in hiding logic, reasoning, truth then Law itself is criminal. It should be noted that crime originate from lesser evil or immorality, lack of understanding, wrong beliefs etc. Thoughtful explanation of truth through logic and reasoning can reduce crime.
I think we should not talk about Law before we properly understand that suppressing freedom of speech is immoral and evil.
To
Marvin_Edwards
The value of freedom of speech comes from its utility in conveying truth. The value of truth comes from its role in keeping us in touch with reality, such that we can deal more effectively with it. .
Exactly. By this way freedom of speech help reducing evil and immorality. By suppressing speech immoral and evil people try to project their view point without any opposition in the name of speech being disrespectful, hurtful etc. There's little common psychology here, which you need to try understanding to get my point clear.
So, we should not be so free as to lie, deceive, manipulate, or otherwise cause unnecessary harm to others by our speech.
We cannot suppress all these things anyway, so I see no point talking about these. Moreover suppressing speech help these things to become even more widespread. These things have no moral value. We can't suppress lying, manipulation, deception while suppressing speech help these things.
When speech is used to create unnecessary harm it is objectively immoral. When speech is used to benefit everyone then it is objectively moral.
Let me first clear why I said freedom of speech is
objective morality in the course of discussion. But till then try understanding that you cannot suppressing lying, deceiving etc.
To
Benj96
I think one thing needed to be more than clear i.e. when you talk about suppression of speech you talk about suppression of thoughtful explanation of truth through logic. It's never a suppression of lie, deception, verbal abuse, cyber bullying etc. because to suppress these you need complete shut down of people's mouth, ability to write, like you cannot talk with your mother, friends, spouse, or anybody around. Then only you can suppress lies, deception, verbal abuse etc. , and you cannot shut people's mouth. So there's no point talking about these, I think so. If you still think that there's a need for talking in this line of thought, then you can express your concern.
Secondly logic often contradicts morality.
Does that mean illogicalness is moral?
Actually, logic and morality is not a dichotomy. Let us have example:-
Being respectful is moral and being disrespectful is immoral, right?
Suppose you respect an evil person and support his evil ideas, but I am disrespectful to him, hurt him because of same ideas. Tell me, who is moral here, and who is logical?
IMO we both are moral and immoral here, in a way. The difference is in appearance and reality. But who is logical? I think, I am.
So, logic and morality goes hand in hand, but difference is in appearance and reality, I think so. It is not always this way, depending upon presence of evil ideas and evil person.
Your example of environment and culling surplus human seems wrong to me because there is not one way to solve any problem, but many. Also, it seems like someone is in urgent need to solve that problem, and urgency and time constraints doesn't go well with truth and logic.
To
Terrapin Station
I am not suggesting mob rule, but I am suggesting right rule even if the right is only one person. This "right" only comes logical explanation of thoughts which I call as freedom of speech.
Your motorcycle example is like dictatorial implementation of what felt to be right. No, I am saying implement or approve anything on the basis logic, truth, freedom of speech.
So, per "anything which leads to greater good is moral and anything which hinders it is immoral" you don't wind up with freedom of speech, because there's a lot of speech that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable.
Generally logical expression of thoughts are uncomfortable to lots and lots of people who think wrong is right and when such belief and ideas are questioned they curb the speech by simplest means possible.
Some speech cannot be suppressed because it requires complete shutting down of mouth and ability to write, so there's no point talking about it.
We are talking about objective morality, so it is very important to understand it anyway because if it is then it would beneficial in many ways. So I request everyone to be patient and question my understanding all the way you can, but reasonably. Without your questioning and opposition I may not be able to explain my views, as I am not writing a book. I think the topic is very critical and very important to me, and possibly everyone. I generally write one post per day.
I will try answering remaining posters in forthcoming replies. Please take this post to understand my views better.