On Freedom of Speech, and Moral-Ethical Responsibility

[Stephen3141]

There are many people who do not seem to understand Moral-Ethical systems, or what a fair rule of law does.
This is an issue in understanding God's moral-ethical law, and also the American fair rule of law.

For example, in America, there are appeals to "freedom of speech" which (if allowed)
would undercut all other laws in America's fair rule of law. This was NEVER how the founding
fathers conceived of the rule of law in America.

Although this basic error in thinking is very common in America, it is horrendously dysfunctional.
Another example would be the argument...

It's my body!
Keep your laws off my body!

This argument IGNORES the basic fact that a fair rule of law, heavily regulates what we can do WITH OUR BODIES.
We live, through our bodies.
At the final judgment, Christ will judge us according to our actions (lived out through our bodies).
So many moral-ethical values address what we should or should not do, WITH OUR BODIES.
---------- ----------

The much more intelligent approach to freedom of speech, is that we are free to say anything we want,
BUT it is proper for a fair rule of law to hold us responsible for what we speak.
The freedom to speak (in America), does NOT carry with it immunity for what we publicly assert.
Not will any such fantasy immunity exist for us at the final judgment.

35 A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. 36 t I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. 37 By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Mt 12:35–37.

In a fair rule of law, ALL the laws exist together.
No one law is designed to allow someone to use it to annul all the other laws.

 

[zippy2006]

The much more intelligent approach to freedom of speech, is that we are free to say anything we want,
BUT it is proper for a fair rule of law to hold us responsible for what we speak.

America moved beyond the common law tradition of construing freedom of speech as merely freedom from pre-censorship but not from post-speech consequences. It did this beginning with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famous dissent in Abrams v. United States. There are certain forms of prohibited speech (which involve a kind of imminent endangering) but the American approach is still quite different from the pre-censorship view.

For example, in America, there are appeals to "freedom of speech" which (if allowed)
would undercut all other laws in America's fair rule of law.

Laws come into competition, as does freedom of speech. It is true that a free speech absolutism which makes no room for competing laws is untenable, but this is true of the absolute implementation of many laws.

 

[Stephen3141]

(I guess that there is little interest in this topic of American Freedom of Speech.

After all that the Bible says, about being careful as to what we speak,
this is surprising to me.

Maybe few Protestant Fundamentalists are reading this site.)