Okay this will sound like I am trying to incite a series of verbal altercations here but I am genuinely curious. Everyone here has or is studying law and the least we can expect is civility from each other.
My question is how does freedom of speech work? This question is related to three contradicting circumstances.
1) A comedian makes a certain comment/joke on someone’s religion or god and it is argued that he has freedom of speech (or that he does not)
2) A man makes a homophobic comment and he is cancelled because such comments are not contained within freedom of speech (or that it is)
3) A comedian makes a certain comment/joke on a certain religion where it specifically mentioned that no jokes ought to be tolerated and in that certain case he does nit have freedom of speech
I understand that this is all about morality but who’s standards of morality im relation to freedom of speech are we currently adhering to? Wouldn’t it lead to inconsistency and foul subjectivity if different standards of morality exist in the same legal system? How can morality be even defined in a piece of book considering that it is too big of an emotion to draft and that it changes every 10 years?
FoE is the absence of prosecution, absence of pursuing you by the State. Private individuals are still free to treat you howsoever they deem fit, and that's just a consequence of your speech you have to live with.
My question is how does freedom of speech work? This question is related to three contradicting circumstances.
1) A comedian makes a certain comment/joke on someone’s religion or god and it is argued that he has freedom of speech (or that he does not)
2) A man makes a homophobic comment and he is cancelled because such comments are not contained within freedom of speech (or that it is)
3) A comedian makes a certain comment/joke on a certain religion where it specifically mentioned that no jokes ought to be tolerated and in that certain case he does nit have freedom of speech
I understand that this is all about morality but who’s standards of morality im relation to freedom of speech are we currently adhering to? Wouldn’t it lead to inconsistency and foul subjectivity if different standards of morality exist in the same legal system? How can morality be even defined in a piece of book considering that it is too big of an emotion to draft and that it changes every 10 years?
FoE is the absence of prosecution, absence of pursuing you by the State. Private individuals are still free to treat you howsoever they deem fit, and that's just a consequence of your speech you have to live with.