Which has primacy?
How do these differ?
What do they comprise of?
What conflicting or intersecting rights exist?
No, I’ve not defined terms. I have definitions in mind, but am also trialing language. The 2nd term is novel and appears not to be in significant use. I’m interested in seeing what others presume the meaning to be.
"Freedom of Speech" seems to me somewhat ambiguous and/or limited. It does not directly seem to address a set of related issues, or puts lines, walls, and doors or other access points in uncomfortable places.
So I did what I try to remember to do when thinking through nutty philosophical concepts, and inverted the notion: what is unfreedom of speech?
That would ... have constraints. Limitations, prohibitions, compulsion, ...
Which suggests that freedom might be thought of as part a larger scope of self-determined information behaviours, or slightly less cumbersomely stated: autonomy in communication.
The phrase seems to have little extant use, outside a small niche in public relations, so confusion should be minimal.
Framed this way, a number of topics related to free speech, but not directly addressed by conventional discussion, seem more clearly in scope: expression, nondisclosure, privacy, association, solitude, access, blocking, translation or conversion, veracity, crytographic methods, repudiation. ...
More on thread here (toot is from a comment):
@dredmorbius Your framing highlights one aspect of autonomy, communication. Another way to view this is to see autonomy as the fundamental value and communication just one way of expressing that autonomy. For example, freedom of association is seen as a human right, and there is no need to ground it in communication.
@jaranta Mental models are arbitrary, though one hopes useful, orderings of reality. There virtually always multiple, often conflicting, such orderings. I'm tring to come up witha more useful framing for communications than the existing free speech construction seems to afford. Broader in scope and more internally consistent.
I'm hesitant to rely on arguments founded on universal rights, not because I (necessarily) disagree with the rights proposed, but because the reasoning (in the correct use of the phrase) begs the question:
Q: Why should a person have ability X?
A: Because X is a fundamental human right.
Q: What is a fundamental human right?
A: A right that applies to all people.
Q: But doesn't that just restate the question?
Q: Who determines what are and aren't fundamental rights? What if two fundamental rights, or sets of rights, conflict?
(My strawmen are most obliging.)
I prefer to try workng from a combination of pragmatism, empirical evidence, and first principles (or causal foundations), in roughly that order.
Pragmatism, because extends what is into what may be (so you don't get stuck in the local pessima of "that's just the way it is", empirical evidence because desire divorced of reality is fantasy, and first principles / causality, because these establish dependencies and fundamental mechanisms.
Association and comunication are exceptionally tightly interrelated. Each feeds on the other, though association may be the more fundamental: it is the necessary precursor of a communications channel. Association without communication affords very little: communication is what makes association work.
@dredmorbius I don't disagree with any of that. I was trying to highlight that working from just one value (freedom) and one type of activity (speech) might not be the best option and e.g. human rights assume multiple types and sources of values.
BTW, it seems you might be heading towards Habermasian type ideal of communicative action.
@dredmorbius Yes, that.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!