> You can wax poetically all you want about endowment by the creator, but try saying racial slurs on daytime TV and see how long that lasts.
You're conflating two senses of "free speech". Free speech is an ideal, which our society does not fully reach (as you correctly pointed out). But in the US, "free speech" is also sometimes used to refer to the legal protection from the first amendment. And in your example, that does apply. I can say all the racial slurs I want on TV, and it would be quite illegal to put me in jail for it.
> I can say all the racial slurs I want on TV, and it would be quite illegal to put me in jail for it.
This is not true.
Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1464, “[w]hoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1468(a), “[w]hoever knowingly utters any obscene language or distributes any obscene matter by means of cable television or subscription services on television, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or by a fine in accordance with this title, or both.” Likewise, under 47 U.S.C. Section 559, “[w]hoever transmits over any cable system any matter which is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required that escaped slaves, even if they reached free states, be captured and returned to their owners.
It went further by mandating that citizens in free states assist in this process.
The penalties for non-compliance (evening declining to assist with recapturing a runaway slave) was imprisonment.
Laws that fundamentally violate natural rights don't age well. You need to have a better moral compass. You're probably just a teenager so you're naive.
This comment and others you've posted in the subthread are in breach of the HN guidelines. You can't keep commenting on HN if you're going to attack people like this. Please remind yourself of the guidelines and adhere to them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This comment and others you've posted in the subthread are in breach of the HN guidelines. You can't keep commenting on HN if you're going to attack people like this. Please remind yourself of the guidelines and adhere to them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm fine with it. I don't mind his "attacks" it's just an abstract intellectual topic. Not everyone is high in neuroticism. Some people learn from heated debate. You're only in favor of learning styles that make you feel good? We're debating in good spirit.
Good spirited debate is great, personal insults destroy what the site is for and are a turnoff for other community members. Just please edit out the swipes and we’re all good.
Belated reply here, but the answer may be interesting to some people: when comments breaking the site guidelines stay live and/or unflagged, it gives the impression that it's ok to post that way to HN. Therefore, even if the two of you were both fine with the interaction, it has a negative effect on the community.
One could put it this way: each post to HN doesn't just say whatever its content says; it also contains a metamessage about what kind of place this is. Since we care very much about what kind of place HN is, and will become, we have to care about that.
(Incidentally, flagged responses aren't removed - they remain visible to anyone who turns the 'showdead' setting on in their profile. You're welcome to turn it on, but if you do, please don't forget that you did! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)
People in other countries also have natural rights. Even if they live under oppressive governments, the right to free speech still exists. It's the same logic used by abolitionists to justify ending slavery.
"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). The concept of positive law is related to the concept of legal rights."
You're conflating two senses of "free speech". Free speech is an ideal, which our society does not fully reach (as you correctly pointed out). But in the US, "free speech" is also sometimes used to refer to the legal protection from the first amendment. And in your example, that does apply. I can say all the racial slurs I want on TV, and it would be quite illegal to put me in jail for it.