The Greater Aryan Race wrote:The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:Here - let's perform an experiment - in your own home, with nobody listening, utter a threat of violence or a treasonous statement - then observe when literally nothing happens. Censorship is entirely a fabrication of artificial authority and not anything besides it.
That example makes no sense. If I say something that contravenes law, and it has not been picked up by the government, then that can only mean that the government has not been made aware of the violation, or it is aware and it chooses not to prosecute me. That doesn't say anything about censorship being a "fabrication".
Censorship is a tool of the State, a perfectly legitimate authority, so I don't see what's the point of that comment.
And still no source to support that claim that freedom of speech is the "natural order and nature of men"?The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:It is incorrect to say that freedom of speech is artificial,
Why? "Freedom" of speech is free so far as governments and entities permit it to be.The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:if it were, there would be consequences for heinous speech beyond that levied by man.
Heinous speech such as?
I'm saying that the most powerful tool a man-made authority can wield is coercion. You can threaten violence before I say something and then act retroactively after I've said it, but no man-made authority actually has the power to prevent me from saying it, and since there are no natural authorities to prevent me from saying it either (as I demonstrated in my previous post), it follows that the authority to determine what I do and do not say is bestowed entirely to me - free will and thus free speech are inherent to my being, to your being, and no state can actually change that. You're looking at freedom from the incorrect statist point of view, and not the correct egoist point of view.
The first thing you said is implicit in the example.
