So just semi-public executions then :)
The ones lucky to get mentioned once in the 24h news cycle.
Also “freedom of speech” should protect you from all.
Its just that the specific brand of “freedom of speech™” you are probably referring to is limited by your personal power.
Ie megacorps and the rich have freedom of speech bcs its costs them virtually nothing. But citizens don’t. Citizens get gag orders or sued to oblivion & ruined lives (regardless of the court outcome). I’d say that that is a very strong deterrent that in practice limits your meaningless theoretical rights.
Fun fact, in the US you can slander corporations, here in Finland (and prolly others in EU idk), you can’t, because corporations don’t have the same right as people and thus don’t have an honour in the same way a natural person does, and thus you can’t libel or slander a corporation.
So I can talk all the shit I want of Coke, Facebook, Shell whatever, calling them immoral greedy pedophiles or whatever if I want to, but I couldn’t argue that directly of the natural people who are employed by the company.
Probably not as simple as I make it. Further elaboration on:
Just like with gov - freedom of speech isn’t absolute (thats why treason laws exist & have the highest of punishments).
Everyone can have consequences.
But how the tools are set and effective to provide those freedoms equally is the real issue.
Eg slander acoustics are used all the time for non-slander speech, just as a tool to limit that ones speech and even as a deterrent to others.
And I would say the wealthy disproportionately accuse of slander the not-so-wealthy.
Thats why I mention gag orders & lives ruined just by the procedures/tools.
Freedom of speech protects you from the government, who could otherwise publicly execute you for speaking out against them.
So just semi-public executions then :)
The ones lucky to get mentioned once in the 24h news cycle.
Also “freedom of speech” should protect you from all.
Its just that the specific brand of “freedom of speech™” you are probably referring to is limited by your personal power.
Ie megacorps and the rich have freedom of speech bcs its costs them virtually nothing. But citizens don’t. Citizens get gag orders or sued to oblivion & ruined lives (regardless of the court outcome). I’d say that that is a very strong deterrent that in practice limits your meaningless theoretical rights.
No. Absolutely not. This is why slander and libel exist.
Fun fact, in the US you can slander corporations, here in Finland (and prolly others in EU idk), you can’t, because corporations don’t have the same right as people and thus don’t have an honour in the same way a natural person does, and thus you can’t libel or slander a corporation.
So I can talk all the shit I want of Coke, Facebook, Shell whatever, calling them immoral greedy pedophiles or whatever if I want to, but I couldn’t argue that directly of the natural people who are employed by the company.
Probably not as simple as I make it. Further elaboration on:
https://rm.coe.int/1680483b2d
Anyway just wanted to point out “slander” and “libel” are subjective in the sense of there being so many different legislative frameworks
Just like with gov - freedom of speech isn’t absolute (thats why treason laws exist & have the highest of punishments).
Everyone can have consequences.
But how the tools are set and effective to provide those freedoms equally is the real issue.
Eg slander acoustics are used all the time for non-slander speech, just as a tool to limit that ones speech and even as a deterrent to others.
And I would say the wealthy disproportionately accuse of slander the not-so-wealthy.
Thats why I mention gag orders & lives ruined just by the procedures/tools.