Response to Capteo on Freedom of Speech

Capteo has written a series of thought articles on freedom of speech and self censorship which I read and wanted to respond to. I originally was going to write my thoughts in the comments on Capteos' article but they soon ballooned to a proportion that I figured it would be best to put out a response blog.  The link to Capteos' articles is at the bottom of the post.

In the hypothetical society in which you set up in your second article there is no responsibility for the speech so even lies, slander and incitements of violence would be acceptable without legal repercussions. Perhaps it is simply such an alien concept to me but I cannot imagine a way in which that society could actually function. Even in a society where expression of ideas was the pinnacle of all existence there would have to be some form of self preservation otherwise the society would (I should think) collapse in short order.

I think the big problem to me in thinking about this hypothetical society is that if you can express any thought or idea and there is no response negative or positive about it then the speech itself and the ideas they express are essentially meaningless.

As for self censorship in regards to potential retaliation etc. it certainly occurs daily in many places in the world but the interesting thing about Freedom of speech at least in America is that while you have a right to say essentially anything as long as it does not encroach on the rights of others you are not free from consequence simply because you are free to say it. The thing about censoring to avoid offending people is that offense can only be taken never given and so the burden rests with the person hearing the words as to how to react not the person saying them, unless of course they are saying words that are untrue or that may incite violence or other physical/monetary harm on another. If I were to say "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" it might be my intention for you to be offended but the only way you can be offended is if you let it offend you. Additionally even if you are offended you are still responsible for determining your own response. Even when offended you could simply choose to laugh in my face and move on. 

Those of fragile mind have a responsibility to themselves and society to learn to deal with the pressures and challenges to thought that come about on a daily basis. By remaining in a state of fragility they are actually weakening the society in which they live and their repeated calls for censorship are an attack on the very freedoms we enjoy and the concepts on which the U.S. was founded.

It seems that the concept of mental encroachment you are speaking about is essentially the concept that the world in our minds is not necessarily the world as it is nor the world as perceived by others. When confronted with this people are naturally unsure and uneasy, some may take great offense to this and it can be straining. Some will fail to incorporate the change and will crumble. Some will accept the change and go on as before and some will accept the change and flourish. The responsibility of how to deal with this rest solely on the individual though I am not against people who try to help others though these paradigm changes and actually encourage those with the constitution to do so to actually do it.

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/628849573602795540

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/629616694259621905

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/630347814190198794