inalienable is not the same as absolute, tho. at least, from what se learn in law school. right of intimacy, for example. if I clearly hear you’re killing someone inside your house, I can invade your intimacy. your right of intimacy is still inalienable, you didnt lost it cuz I invade your house. but it’s not absolute, cuz I just invaded it :)
Discussion
from what I’ve learnt*
The right to speak seems as self evident to me as the right to life.
sure, but if you acuse me of murder or drug dealing, outta nowhere, just cuz you wanted to exerce your right of speak, I’ll fkn sue you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I get you, but I still said what I wanted to say.
There's shit going on now like exclusion zones , where they are trying to say people can't pray to themselves in total silence in certain areas of the UK and Ireland.
They are trying to normalise the idea of free speech as a sliding scale to justify censorship. I see this everywhere.
For example in Ireland we had a law that said if you made a speech that resulted in someone throwing a brick through a window, thats prosecutable. That's empirical data, we can observe what the person said and the brick being thrown and establish a causal link.
Recently they have tried to introduce legislation that says you can be prosecuted for saying something "hateful" , which is not empirical and entirely subjective and undefined.
One cannot look into the hearts and souls of men to determine if hate was in their heart, its more akin to the Spanish inquisition than any idea of impartial justice.
yeah, totally. if you scroll down my posts, a recent one is about a podcaster censored by supreme court here in brazil. president wanna censor free speech, congress wants it as well, we have a dictator as a supreme court judge and more is coming. that’s exactly why it’s so important to make this difference cuz that’s it. nothing else can take your inalienable rights, that’s what people who are cheering all this censorship need to understand, but they also gotta get a good will signal from those against (like me). I guess this may be the signal, as simples as it might be. in the end: confidence from part to part. we need to start trusting more each other again, the ones who think differently, cuz we basically ain’t agreeing on something, in part or as a whole, simply due to this fact, we dont trust each other anymore. and mostly due to a dumb misunderstanding. we gotta give something to get an agreement. i’m the end, just the small piece of truth that what missing to bring two or more truths together, mano of a kind. maybe all it takes is “yeah, my right to speak ends when I call you a rapist outta nowhere” to beat censorship. I’m drunk, so sorry if I make no sense.
Take a quick look at your posts man , thanks !
I'm drunk too , so it makes total sense, it's uncanny . I think you're right, people need to make compromises.
There is a saying :
What doesn't bend , will break.
But those compromises are and should be voluntary and between individuals and not to be arbitrarily policed by the state.
compromises first. then take the state down 🤝 then hopefully: urban exodus, tribus, sovereignity