You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.
i am free to wave my hands, doing so results in you getting smacked, and that’s assault, therefore I’m not free to wave my hands because we have laws against assault…
I actually got that, and that’s why I mentioned common sense. Absolute freedom of speech cannot exisit in a world within most legal frameworks because people cannot be trusted to not act on violent rhetoric. ( January 6’s attack on the US capitol is a prime example of the consequences of that).
But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.
i am free to wave my hands, doing so results in you getting smacked, and that’s assault, therefore I’m not free to wave my hands because we have laws against assault…
I cannot believe the government bans hand waving.
I actually got that, and that’s why I mentioned common sense. Absolute freedom of speech cannot exisit in a world within most legal frameworks because people cannot be trusted to not act on violent rhetoric. ( January 6’s attack on the US capitol is a prime example of the consequences of that).
But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.