In most cases, 'free speech' is infringed upon constantly, that is why the general public is bitter.
What leads an individual to believe that their volition has anything to do with the 'freedom' of speech?
- Is free speech a concept that is philosophical in origin?
- Is free speech defined politically as the legal freedom to say particular things?
- Is free speech, in the most unregulated sense possible, detrimental by society?
- Is free speech influential on the health of humanity or the individual?
- Is free speech a manifestation of any attribute of the human 'condition'?
I think these questions aren't asked frequently enough, there is more concern about emotional inference through personal experience about 'rights' than a logical criterion of etiquette. I believe if the latter were true, there would be more of an intellectual outlook on statements and ideologies before they are expressed; even without words (you have to be a strong empath or psychic to get the depth of the importance of wordless interpretations of thought).
Furthermore, I believe half of the trouble with how people are 'regulated' comes in with individual ignorance of the meaning of words that are spoken. Especially in regards to how other 'energies' are perceived within those words.
Doesn't it make sense to look at written words in full context?
The last time I was given any wise instruction from a literary scholar, they made it utterly clear that all communication occurs within context. When it doesn't, communication has stopped because the ideas that explain are lost to literal meaning of individual words that can't collaborate anything beyond grammatical accuracy (meaning their construction may make sense, but nothing was expressed as far as unique information. Which is why it isn't considered an idea, just a grammatically accurate usage of words).
Since I am doing something along those lines right now, I can express the utter importance of understanding my own context just to make sure I'm being the least confounding as possible. This includes trying to refrain from offensive, ignorant, emotionally charged, loaded questioning, and/or begging the question.
There is a time for using certain illogical processes to make a point, but the style reflects the logic used when put together predictably. This isn't the point of context, but it certainly does give weight to why context may explain perceived contradictions and the like.
This is one reason why I can hear someone say, "I'm going to kill you" and I don't even raise my guard. In fact, I may become more dismissive even though I was clearly given a threat. That little thing called "context" is tremendously important in my assessment.
When does Free Speech become legitimately regulated?
Honestly.. I have a personal outlook that differs from my 'global' outlook of what regulation on communication should look like. Because there are different mediums of communication, there is a heavy relevance to the capacity of transmitting information and what kind of energy goes along with it. Though most people consider my inference to derive from pseudo-sciences, I feel it is important to note the growing empiricism of the fields I reference to. So to all the Naturalists, just deal with it if you aren't going to research it yourselves.
Personally, I think every individual should know when to SHUT THE HELL UP.
Sorry.. I just have a hard time with people who are so closed minded that their mouth opens up even wider when they experience Cognitive Dissonance.
The process of maturity includes knowing when to fight a battle, knowing how to fight a battle, and knowing who is fighting on what side.. In fact, the 'art' of discussion has many rules of logic as well as etiquette of behavior to properly convey contextual meaning in anything. Let us not forget that the etiquette extends to social behavior, a general precept to having a discussion as opposed to a street brawl that the cops have to break up....
On that note, I have a global view that is quite wild.. It may even be contradictory at the core, if I don't explain it succinctly.
I think that Free Speech is an illusion, it isn't necessary, and it is a sign of immaturity.
The only thing 'free' about "Free Speech" is the fact that you can speak what you want. regardless of consequences. In fact, most revolutionaries don't publicize their intents or even their thoughts until after the danger clears their area. This is not a constant, however it is worth mentioning. Moreover, historically we can find that the 'rules' of speech can change between words of a sentence. Tyrannical 'lordship' anyone? How about a court trial? Ever been robbed at the business end of a weapon? Honestly, I could go on all day..
Aside from the freedom to talk being a basis of accepting consequences, the idea of Free Speech in society is always held as what comes off as 'controversial'. Generally speaking, we don't say that our volition is what decides free speech, it the perception of the ideas we express.. Even if that means the ideas are misconstrued. Which is a very legitimate point to make, since many people have lost their lives to incorrect understanding of ideas, be it something petty or 'national security'. Basically, assume that anything you say can and will be held against you. (doesn't that sound familiar?) In fact, when speaking about personal beliefs you may as well assume you could be burned at the stake just for expressing yourself. Even if you did it without any inflammatory statements or loaded questions. In fact, the sad part is how much anger you can expect from people who are made at a corporate ideology, therefore they express that anger at you for speaking about it (be you a proponent or not).
(My main point is that free speech comes with some consequences that cause people to regulate speech)
[The secondary point is that it is necessary that people not have free speech]
{The conclusion is that reality says anyone can do what is in their capacity, but it doesn't make it right}
