Who invented the phrase "freedom of speech?"

[Rea]

(Image)

I see this comic thrown around a lot more often than I see anyone claiming their 1st Amendment rights are being violated for any of these things. It frankly makes me wonder whether it's become more of a way to strawman one's critics than honestly refute them.

I'm not sure, however, whether or not I see it more often than people claiming that others shouting over you contradicts the concept of freedom of speech, without claiming it's against the 1st Amendment in particular. (Not everyone lives in the USA, after all.) It leaves behind the point of what is the point of freedom of speech if people shouting over you effectively prevents others from being able to hear what you have to say.

So that leaves behind the question; who invented the phrase itself? Does the phrase "freedom of speech" refer exclusively, by definition, to that which the authors of the American Bill Of Rights used it to refer to, or did it have a prior definition?

I remember hearing this with regards to a controversial speaker who was supposed to speak on some college campus. People showed up to protest him and clap their hands and shout over his speech, drowning out his commentary.

They were not violating his first amendment rights, but on the flip side of the coin they were essentially deciding for me and everybody else either listening to the speech in person or virally that what he was saying wasn't worth listening to.

I like judging speeches and their content for myself. I do not like having other people decide for me what I can and cannot listen to. Let the man talk. By shouting over him, they were also being incredibly disrespectful. Respect your opponent, no matter what his political views are. Respectfully disagree with them, pick apart his argument bit by bit, instead of resorting to childish tantrums. Drowning him out is no better than namecalling or blowing raspberries.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Does it matter? That's not the one that's more often in dispute right now.

We need to know who invented it to know what it really means so we can know what you mean by saying it.

I also have questions about who invented several other words you've used, but I suppose we can start with "impunity".

I meant more in dispute in general, not just on this site.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=freedom+of+speech+history

First two results are from the cesspool of bullshit known as Wikipedia. If that's what "Google" gives us, "Google" is not to be trusted.

This isn't the most ignorant thing I've ever heard, but it's certainly a contender.

[Petrolheadia]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=freedom+of+speech+history

First two results are from the cesspool of bullshit known as Wikipedia. If that's what "Google" gives us, "Google" is not to be trusted.

Proof for accusation?

[The Archregimancy]

As far as I'm aware, the earliest formal appearance of the phrase in the Anglo-American legal tradition is in the 1689 Bill of Rights introduced in England following the Glorious Revolution:

Freedom of Speech.

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will ... troduction

The 1689 act is still in force in the UK.

(see the footnotes over why a 1689 act is dated 1688).

The basic concept, however, is much older; in the Western tradition its roots can be traced back to Classical Greece and Rome - though this doesn't mean that a 17th-century Englishman, a 21st-century American, and a 5th-century BC Athenian would have understood or applied the concept the same way.

[Ifreann]

We need to know who invented it to know what it really means so we can know what you mean by saying it.

I also have questions about who invented several other words you've used, but I suppose we can start with "impunity".

I meant more in dispute in general, not just on this site.

That's nice, but we can't know what you're talking about until we find out who invented these words and what those people wanted them to mean.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

First two results are from the cesspool of bullshit known as Wikipedia. If that's what "Google" gives us, "Google" is not to be trusted.

Proof for accusation?

Makes me wonder, you know. If he's so against Wiki, all he has to do is check the sources cited for the articles. Unless, of course, he just doesn't want to do the work. That's a possibility. Besides, Google indexed more links to sources so... I'm guessing he just doesn't want to read on his own inquiry. *nod*

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

As far as I'm aware, the earliest formal appearance of the phrase in the Anglo-American legal tradition is in the 1689 Bill of Rights introduced in England following the Glorious Revolution:

Freedom of Speech.

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will ... troduction

The 1689 act is still in force in the UK.

(see the footnotes over why a 1689 act is dated 1688).

The basic concept, however, is much older; in the Western tradition its roots can be traced back to Classical Greece and Rome - though this doesn't mean that a 17th-century Englishman, a 21st-century American, and a 5th-century BC Athenian would have understood or applied the concept the same way.

So does this suggest this freedom referred, even then, to protection from the government censoring you, or did it extend beyond that?

[Page]

I'm not sure, however, whether or not I see it more often than people claiming that others shouting over you contradicts the concept of freedom of speech, without claiming it's against the 1st Amendment in particular. (Not everyone lives in the USA, after all.) It leaves behind the point of what is the point of freedom of speech if people shouting over you effectively prevents others from being able to hear what you have to say.

There is certainly a concept of freedom of speech worthy of consideration, distinct from the legal right of freedom of speech which only protects people from governments. But often when someone accuses me of not respect their conceptual freedom of speech, it is because I have responded with scorn and derision to an opinion of theirs which disgusts me, but does not my conceptual freedom of speech entitle me to give such a response?

Everyone can make themselves heard, and not every deserves a fair shake. Some viewpoints automatically forfeit respect and consideration.

As to the question of who first coined such a term as "freedom of speech", I think a more pertinent question is who first thought to restrict and punish speech? Freedoms, liberties, these things are not invented. They existed since time immemorial. Freedom is the natural state of things. Freedom can never be given, it can only be repressed. If a government once used to punish people for criticizing that government and now no longer does, that government has not given freedom to anyone, it has ceased a form of repression. That is an important distinction, because anyone who thinks freedom is a gift from the state can never be free.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Well it’s 3 predefined words, so let’s say Samuel Johnson, he wrote the first dictionary,

Nope. He didn't even write the first English dictionary.

[Neutraligon]

Well it’s 3 predefined words, so let’s say Samuel Johnson, he wrote the first dictionary,

Nope. He didn't even write the first English dictionary.

Wasn't the oldest one discovered in cuneiform? I know there was a really old Chinese one as well.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Some bloke

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

As to the question of who first coined such a term as "freedom of speech", I think a more pertinent question is who first thought to restrict and punish speech?

No, the question still remains who invented the phrase as that phrase was based on where you draw the line. "Right to swing your first" and all that.

Freedoms, liberties, these things are not invented. They existed since time immemorial. Freedom is the natural state of things.

That's nice. Now why not ask dolphins if they're free from being gang-raped by other dolphins?

Freedom can never be given, it can only be repressed. If a government once used to punish people for criticizing that government and now no longer does, that government has not given freedom to anyone, it has ceased a form of repression. That is an important distinction, because anyone who thinks freedom is a gift from the state can never be free.

False dichotomy. It's neither a gift from the state NOR the natural state of things. It's a negotiated settlement. Hence the USA having more of speech than Europe does.