OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Carl Edlund Anderson]

On 13/02/2006 17:22, M Holmes wrote:
> Carl Edlund Anderson writes:
>> On 13/02/2006 16:35, M Holmes wrote:
>> > Carl Edlund Anderson writes:
>> >> Mind you, had I been the editor of the Danish newspaper, I might
>> >> well have decided running those cartoons might not be in the
>> >> interests of the business, regardless of my legal right to do so
>
>> > Which would be self-censorship.
>
>> But it is, after all, my right to censor myself whenever I feel like
>> it.  I mean, I quite often choose not to say things that I could
>> legally say :) I rely on the law to keep other people from choosing
>> for me.
>
> Which works fine until a group thinks that it can have you self-censor
> the way they want you to my encouraging you to believe that they will
> cause you and your head to pursue different careers...

But at that point you are entitled to legal protection from people
threatening an illegal act. (I'm leaving aside the issue of whether you
actually get the protection you are entitled to).  I should be free to
choose or not choose the (legal) things I say without fear of illegal
reprisal.

If I went to a job interview and indulged in my legal right to free
speech by making true but unflattering observations about my
interviewers, it would be ridiculous to say that it was "censorship" if
they didn't hire me.  My right to present my opinions is protected as
much as their right not to hire me if they don't like me.  I might well
choose to keep my unflattering observations to myself, if I want the
job.  Or I could choose that the job was less important than making my
observations.  The important thing is I have that choice, not someone else.

All that matters is that people can say what they want without breaking
the law themselves or fearing other people will break the law in
reprisal against them.

Cheers,
Carl

--
Carl Edlund Anderson
mailto:cea at carlaz.com
http://www.carlaz.com/