I don’t think you understand the distinction. Free speech, as a principle, exists to protect and allow all people to privately hold and voice any opinion without persecution from the government. This principle doesn’t extend to people who are making speech on behalf of the state. That’s not their personal opinions, that’s the narratives the government wants to release to the public. It is their job to release this propaganda, and that’s an action to fulfill the obligations of the work they’ve been tasked with. Keep in mind, public officials still obviously have freedom of speech as they’re still people, however, this protection doesn’t extend to what they do within the capacity of their offices. That’s the big difference between someone like Kirk and someone like Streicher.
Also just to be clear, I’m not one of those free speech “absolutists”, I specifically said that I think the exceptions that are currently defined federally for the 1st amendment are the golden standard. Btw these exceptions are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, fighting words, and speech integral to illegal conduct. These pretty much cover everything that needs to be an exception. They’re clear enough to set objective standards, but also have some ambiguity to allow for nuance. I don’t think hate speech covers anything that’s not already covered, I also think that hate speech as a concept is inherently more subjective, arbitrary, and therefore more volatile than the already existing exceptions.
Your point about freedom of speech is well and fine, however that’s unrelated to the contradiction I am pointing out. Speech does not become action solely by virtue of the speech being made on behalf of a state.
I mean if you’re arguing technicalities then sure, I guess. My point is that there’s a clear distinction between personal opinions of individuals and public opinions made on behalf of another entity like the government. You could argue otherwise, but I consider the latter to be an action because it’s a job that you carry out rather than an expression of personal opinions. The speech itself isn’t what makes such cases considered as actions imo, the difference is in the context of the delivery.
Gotcha, that makes more sense. In any event, I don’t find your theory of distinction between speech and action very convincing. From a moral perspective, public and private speech can be viewed equivalently by those who believe in virtue ethics, by consequentialists, and by deontologists. I am struggling to see the argument for why state-associated speech is less excusable, when the impact it has on society is clearly detrimental, and when people acting on their own behalf have even more responsibility to bear than those “just taking orders” on behalf of the state or other organization.
I don’t think you understand the distinction. Free speech, as a principle, exists to protect and allow all people to privately hold and voice any opinion without persecution from the government. This principle doesn’t extend to people who are making speech on behalf of the state. That’s not their personal opinions, that’s the narratives the government wants to release to the public. It is their job to release this propaganda, and that’s an action to fulfill the obligations of the work they’ve been tasked with. Keep in mind, public officials still obviously have freedom of speech as they’re still people, however, this protection doesn’t extend to what they do within the capacity of their offices. That’s the big difference between someone like Kirk and someone like Streicher.
Also just to be clear, I’m not one of those free speech “absolutists”, I specifically said that I think the exceptions that are currently defined federally for the 1st amendment are the golden standard. Btw these exceptions are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, fighting words, and speech integral to illegal conduct. These pretty much cover everything that needs to be an exception. They’re clear enough to set objective standards, but also have some ambiguity to allow for nuance. I don’t think hate speech covers anything that’s not already covered, I also think that hate speech as a concept is inherently more subjective, arbitrary, and therefore more volatile than the already existing exceptions.
Your point about freedom of speech is well and fine, however that’s unrelated to the contradiction I am pointing out. Speech does not become action solely by virtue of the speech being made on behalf of a state.
I mean if you’re arguing technicalities then sure, I guess. My point is that there’s a clear distinction between personal opinions of individuals and public opinions made on behalf of another entity like the government. You could argue otherwise, but I consider the latter to be an action because it’s a job that you carry out rather than an expression of personal opinions. The speech itself isn’t what makes such cases considered as actions imo, the difference is in the context of the delivery.
So basically your point is that “I was following orders” is a valid moral defense? Cool, I’m not interested in that line of argument.
The opposite, I’m saying actions are what should be held accountable.
Gotcha, that makes more sense. In any event, I don’t find your theory of distinction between speech and action very convincing. From a moral perspective, public and private speech can be viewed equivalently by those who believe in virtue ethics, by consequentialists, and by deontologists. I am struggling to see the argument for why state-associated speech is less excusable, when the impact it has on society is clearly detrimental, and when people acting on their own behalf have even more responsibility to bear than those “just taking orders” on behalf of the state or other organization.