This sounds like a nice idea, but I wonder if it's backed up by historical fact? There are plenty counter-examples of countries with stable peace as well as some restrictions on freedom of speech. The discussion in the linked article seems to be about absolute vs. semi-restricted freedom of speech, as opposed to absolute vs. none.
There are plenty of examples (for instance, [1]) of "moderate" restrictions on speech being used to unjustly curtail speech which should be protected. If politicians have any power to restrict political speech, they will use that as a weapon against their opponents.
The US is a good example of that. The US has existed for 150 years with stable peace (not to say there has been 0 conflict, but it has existed as a single coherent unit) and freedom to say and publish whatever you want. In contrast, every single nation that has a "stable peace" with speech restrictions has only been in this state since the end of world war 2, when they all destroyed each other, a defining characteristic of their evolution out of that state was freedom of expression, and many of the speech restrictions in many of those countries are relatively new or only recently enforced. Some countries with restrictions that claim to have a stable peace are currently involved in ethnic cleansing and internal armed conflict.
>The US has existed for 150 years with stable peace (not to say there has been 0 conflict, but it has existed as a single coherent unit) and freedom to say and publish whatever you want.
Untrue. The US has plenty of limits on what its citizens can say and publish[0].
For the most part, the restrictions there cover intentional deception, incitement to commit a crime, or speech acts of aggression such as harassment and threats. When we talk about "absolute freedom of speech," we mostly mean the free expression of any opinion, not the freedom to say literally anything.
You're creating a thing yourself to argue against and attributing that thing to people who disagree with you so that you can validate your point essentially against nobody.
That will depend on your definition. As mentioned in other threads, European countries are putting a certain speech outside of the law. The most essential outlawed speech is speech that directly urges others to violence. I think that free speech that doesn't allow for organizing physical violence is still a free speech. That being said, I would love to know if there are examples of instigating violence that were productive and useful for society (because there might be some)
> I would love to know if there are examples of instigating violence that were productive and useful for society (because there might be some)
Does the American Revolution count? (No snark, I'm serious.)
Freedom of speech as recognized in the US Constitution is about the recognition that one person doesn't have the right to silence another, and forming a government doesn't grant that right, and cannot. There ain't no King anymore.
The First Amendment is not an authority granting a right, it's an authority recognizing the limits of its own power or domain. It doesn't say "y'all have the right to say what you want" it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" It's saying that even the highest authority in the land doesn't have the right to limit what someone says. (Although you certainly don't have to listen!)
the uk and germany have banned musicians and artists, notably tyler the creator and death in june. media is heavily censored to even be allowed to be sold in these markets. people are arrested for speech within the uk & eurozone on a regular basis for crimes like making a shitpost video with a pug.
this is not free speech under any definition, it is controlled speech with latitude.
>The most essential outlawed speech is speech that directly urges others to violence.
how do you differentiate between urging others to violence and calls for 'direct action', 'bash the fash' etc?
the black panthers and the nation of islam were widely criticized by the establishment for instigating violence and the armament of black people. the fbi thought mlk was a communist instigator. neither the american civil rights movement nor it's predecessors in the abolitionist movement would largely pass the smell test for permissible speech under european restrictions.
likewise, hate speech laws do not have a good track record for preventing the rise of fascism. both weimar germany and tsarist russia had speech restrictions and aggressive censorship regimes. it didn't work.
