Speech Codes, and the Beginning of the End of the Great American Experiment

How can we ever get to the truth of anything if we stifle debate by erecting speech codes under euphemisms like ‘disinformation,’ or ‘science denial?’

There is no such thing as 'balanced' free speech.  Either speech is free or it isn't speech.  If you open your mouth and threaten someone while holding a loaded gun, that's no longer speech; it's assault.

Speech is either completely free, or something else.  If you scream your theory of Marxism at a 2-year-old child, that isn't speech, it's child abuse.  If you tell an impressionable child he can be a girl, you are no longer speaking, but grooming.  If you believe water cures cancer and tell people about your belief, and they try it and die, that's on them.  They chose to try the water.  They could have refused.  Do you understand now?  Everything that isn't speech, is something else; that's how you keep speech free and open.

Incitement isn't speech, it's incitement.  If I say 'hey, that Black guy stole my wallet stop him,' and someone trips him causing injury because he believed my lie, I could and should be charged.  If I express doubts about the suitibility of Blacks to excel in law or medicine, it might be unpopular, even bigoted, but it cannot be illegal.  

Protected speech is a privilege, not a right.

Free speech has no limits.  I'm free to express and act on any belief I wish as long as I don't harm others.  Government has only negative rights (things they cannot do).  Government is not there to decide which of my thoughts or words need 'protecting.'  When you 'protect' speech, you eventually end up with protected classes, speech codes, oppressed groups under the boot of ‘privileged’ groups, etc.

I might think Bill is a Jerk, but if I spread lies that he cheats on his taxes and hurt his business, he could sue me for slander.  If I tell people he's a Jerk, or I think he's a Jerk, or his wife is fat or his kid is ugly, I'm free to do that.

Nothing is more unreasonable that some power-hungry bureucrat deciding how reasonable my speech is.

Can you think of any law needed to protect others from me giving crazy medical advice?  I should be able to recommend eating powdered glass to people with indigestion, even though it's insane.  The job of those listening to my nonsense is to decide if I'm crazy.  If they take my advice and are competent adults, tough shit.  That's the price of freedom.  The government cannot protect everyone from dumb ideas.    What's crazier, me telling people to eat glass, people who have every right to tell me to get lost, or Anthony Fauci forcing me to take an experimental vaccine as a condition for traveling? 

If the government has no authority to control my right to recommend eating powdered glass for indigestion, it certainly cannot order people to take this or that medicine.

There is no such thing as proven.  Proven is what people are willing to believe works.  Over 10,000 Americans die every year from gastric bleeding caused by aspirin, so it's not proven!  Nothing is proven until the free citizen chooses to believe it is and assumes the risk of taking advice.

All scientific proof is a question of belief.  Scientism is a religion that worships 'proof,' as God, the kind of 'proof' that kills 10,000 people anually.

If people cannot hear crazy ideas, good ideas might also get suppressed.  Then you wind up with a pharmaceutical cartel with one size fits all vaccines that kill people in the billions.

How can government restrict my belief in powdered glass without eventually suppressing high dose vitamin C, sunshine, exercise, meditation, etc?

Why should the government care if some idiot buys powdered glass from another idiot?  It has no right to limit freedom of association and by extension, commerce.

When early man tried herbs in the jungle, some people must have died?  Did anyone sue for bad advice?

How did humanity ever evolve to the point of having governments to regulate them if they weren't self-regulated before that point?

Small amazon tribes are remarkably well-regulated with high cooperativity, no jails, no crime, etc.  It is government that is the sickness.

Chat GPT’s response:

While it is true that free speech is an important value in democratic societies, it is not an absolute right. The concept of free speech is often misunderstood as allowing people to say anything they want without consequences. However, speech can have harmful consequences, and there are legitimate reasons for governments to restrict certain forms of speech.

For example, speech that incites violence or hatred towards particular groups can be restricted because it can harm individuals and destabilize society. Similarly, speech that spreads false information about public health, such as recommending eating powdered glass, can have serious consequences for individuals and public health as a whole.

Governments have a responsibility to protect the public from harm, and restricting certain forms of speech can be necessary to fulfill that responsibility. However, it is important to ensure that any restrictions on speech are narrowly tailored and do not unduly restrict legitimate speech.

It is also important to recognize that free speech is not the only value in society. Other values such as equality, dignity, and public safety are also important, and sometimes these values may come into conflict with free speech. In such cases, it may be necessary to strike a balance between these values.

Finally, it is important to recognize that governments are not the only actors that can restrict speech. Private entities such as social media platforms and employers also have the power to restrict speech within their own domains. Therefore, the debate over free speech should also include discussions about the role of these private actors in shaping the boundaries of speech in society.