Say it were implemented in this world and you could say anything you like (written, spoken, signed whatever) to anyone who can hear/read/see it. What kind of problems could that create and are there any ways to resolve them without limiting that absolute free speech?

Could it even create unsolvable logical errors? E.g an omnipotent god can’t create a stone too heavy for itself to lift. Maybe there are similar things with absolute free speech.

    • I doubt that most of them have the same interpretation of absolutists in this context that you do.

      I get called a free speech absolutist because I believe that you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist, I would not.

      • dandi8@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Out of curiosity, do you consider the sentence below to be a direct incitement to actionable violence?

        “It would be patriotic if someone were to stop Person X from enacting their agenda, even if they used force.”

        If yes, what exactly qualifies it as a “direct incitement”?

        Additionally, would you say it makes a difference whether the sentence above is said by Joe Shmoe vs televised and said by a powerful person with many followers hanging at their every word?

        • Depends who says it. If Joe shmoe says it on Lemmy then id say its fine. If someone said it televised (and where knowledgeable of it being televised, if they are not then its the person televising it who is making it actionable and thus their fault) then it’s actionable and thus u can’t say it.

          I’d say the sentence is a direct incitement of violence. But its not always actionable.

          • atro_city@fedia.ioOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            32 minutes ago

            This is the one I’m using from the dictionary

            free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute freedom.

            From your sentence

            […] you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist

            I think it’s clear that by definition they are incorrect.

            However, I’d go further back to another thing you said

            But also I would argue that anyone who is calling anyone else a free speech absolutist is misunderstanding what that other person stands for.

            I disagree there. It’s some. “Anyone” is without exception.