Thread: Are Online Death Threats Protected Free Speech

Your mindset is very similar to mine. I may be a lawyer by trade, but I distrust the system on nearly every level. I'm a libertarian at heart. Which I think can best be translated into a minarchist with respect to our current societies, and a hopeful anarchist in the future. In other words, I believe that the natural state is that of freedom, and that social constructs create inhibitors to that natural state of freedom. Yet, I'm also aware of the cruelty of some people. Thus, I see a need for law as of now, but my hopes would be that it could go back to a simpler system where people deal freely, and the law follows that example. Thomas Paine had it absolutely right. The one experiment that was truly genius in the experiment of the Colonists was this notion of limited government. I don't even mean that in the way that it gets abused today, in the typical political platitudes, but more down the lines ofif we must suffer the evil of government, the best government is that closest to the people. Coinciding with that thought is the idea that state and local governments are best able to adapt to the changing needs of society. That makes sense, in that the more local the level of government, the closer it is to the people. And, the closer a government is to the people, the more accountable it is. I often think that's why the Capet Dynasty failed in France. Well I mean other than the usual reasons why monarchies crumble. The monarchy and aristocracy separated themselves from so much of a degree that they were too far removed to even understand the problems faced by the citizenry. Once the French Revolution sparked, the leaders of the movement changed. Robespierre was such a strange, contradictory historical figure. He started off as an anti capital punishment lawyer, pushing for freedom of speech, press, and for the rights of man. He wound up being a monster of epic proportions. His ultimate goal with the government changed. He saw concentrating power as beneficial, of course it led to the Great Terror and purging of political dissidents. Another example comes from your native Deutschland. Kaiser Wilhelm II inherited a uniquely open form of monarchy. Germany had one of the most progressive systems of protections for their citizens. There was universal male suffrage for the Reichstag, as female suffrage hadn't really started to set in throughout the west yet, and even a primitive form of a social safety net. I think a lot of this had to do with the fact that Germany had only been fully united for 18 years when Wilhelm took the throne in 1888. Therefore, the various German states still had strong ties to their local populations. This would account for the differing opinions and views towards national power from say Bavaria, Saxony, and the increasingly dominant Prussia. Under the stewardship of Otto von Bismarck, the ties were allowed to remain loose. That fostered a sense of belonging, while still supporting the traditions and natural inclinations of the former principalities. But, with the outbreak of the Great War, and the increased pressures on the leadership, the need for centralization arrived. With it, came the loss of freedom of expression. This all ties into Thomas Paine's point in that beautiful little quote you provided. So, that same strain of tension between the natural yearning for unadulterated liberty and the also prevalent desire for security and order are still being played out. That's the central dilemma of the question with respect to free speech. Free speech is often targeted by various philosophical factions...for the very reason that it is uncomfortable. Free speech is both a thing of beauty, and a tool of absolute power. It's like a finely crafted Luger Handgun, or Mauser Rifle. Its design is exquisite, its purpose undeniably deliberate...and it carries the potential of toppling governments. On the other hand, it can be abused to perpetrate crimes, needlessly cause harm, and to instill a sense of fear. Freedom fighters and dictators alike use both guns and speech. The question is, how do they regulate speech? Do they seek to stifle it, or do they seek to protect aspects of their society while also upholding free speech. With respect to the United States Federal government, I don't trust them when it comes to their claims of deference to speech. There's too many examples of abuse. I do hope that our Supreme Court fulfills the function it was designed for, but, like you, I long for a day when it wouldn't even be necessary.