Freeze Peach again

 As words inevitably have multiple and elastic meanings, a requirement of formal discourse is to define your terms: what do I mean by this word in the present context. It is not a valid response to an argument to say "I, or some dictionary or other authority, doesn't doesn't define the word the same way, so your argument is wrong." That is simply an inept, and cowardly, failure to engage with what your interlocutor is saying.

A very good example of a term that causes immense confusion is "free speech," or freedom of speech. This term is contested everywhere, but it's particularly problematic in the U.S. because, among other reasons, it's specifically mentioned in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The courts have consistently interpreted this to mean that the executive can't do these things either, because if "Congress shall make no law . .. " and the executive is required to faithfully execute the laws, the executive can't possibly have any legal authority to abridge these rights.  (The 14th Amendment extended the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states, by the way, a fairly major point that many people don't seem to know.) Unfortunately, the Constitution does not define "freedom of speech," or any of those other terms, so lawmakers, the courts, and citizens have argued about their meaning from the beginning. (Note that all of this applies only to government: it is entirely silent on The New York Times, Facebook, Twitter, CNN or Blogger.)

Since speaking is also action, and we do things with words, freedom of speech is not freedom to conspire with others to violate the law, to commit fraud, or trick some one into being injured or causing injury. People who are injured by speech can sue for defamation and damages. (Hello Alex Jones.) However, these exceptions have fuzzy boundaries. Germany generally protects political speech, but:

The German penal code prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda, both off- and online. This includes sharing images such as swastikas, wearing an SS uniform and making statements in support of Hitler.

It also places strict rules on how social media companies must moderate and report hate speech and threats. These hate-speech laws were tightened last year, after three far-right terror attacks in 2019 and early 2020 prompted German authorities to warn of increasing extremism.

 

You can read the linked article for a fuller description of these statutes. Now, here in the U.S., we're being asked by one of our former president's good friends to consider what may have been Hitler's good qualities. Well, he obviously must have had certain capabilities that enabled him to seize absolute autocratic control of a wealthy and powerful republic and use his powers to murder 12 million people. Not just anybody can do that! But when you're a genocidal psychopath, being less capable is probably better. 

 

That we're actually having this conversation in the U.S. today is beyond disturbing. But so are a lot of other conversations that shouldn't be happening. Joe Biden won the 2020 election by more than 7 million votes. Human activity, particularly burning fossil fuel, is changing the climate and causing horrific harm which is only going to get worse. There is not an international cabal of liberal politicians and Hollywood celebrities trafficking children for sex and drinking their blood. The mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school (and many others) actually happened. I could go on. There is a case to be made for considering the harm that can be done by outright falsehoods in evaluating the right of free speech. I agree, it isn't easy, but we probably should talk about it.