IcaroRibeiro said:
The answer might be counter intuitive, but the best way to protect democracy is really define boundaries for speech and vote. I'm not suggesting, those boundaries already exists for countries with some degree of advanced legislation Some of those boundaries are often described in constitution. In a perfect democracy with free speech you could vote for states to separate themselves from the federal government, which could lead to a shit tons of issues How to solve it? One of the ways is to put in an entrentchment clause (don't know if there is a direct English term for it, needed to google it in portuguese is clausula petrea) that as long the constitution stands the union is not dismemberable. It might not be criminal to propagate the idea your state/community could be free, but in practice you will need to first dissolve the constitution which on itself needs a huge part of the society agreeing and can be a headache for any politician to propose We can do the same for rights we believe to be inalienable (like human rights), so include them in the list of free speech exclusion i.e. criminalize saying people needs to die or suffer because they were born with a different skin color None of those things are so easy or decide in freestyle. So who decides where lands the limits you ask? It's ultimate ourselves who set boundaries, that's politics in practice. Hence, every democracy will have of course some degree of imperfection You for once thinks it's okay to everyone say whatever they want In other hand, I feel speech should be limited, because free speech is dangerous We will vote, and ultimately politicians will choose based in the boundaries of the constitution and existing laws |
Good answer. But it does not negate my point.
Laws, including a constitution are a product of a culture's morale system. How is that morale system build over time? It's based on that cultures information gathering and experience. Sometimes over a long period of time to cement something like a constitution, sometimes they are shorter term directional like jurisprudence.
But no laws, nor jurisprudence is decided upon without giving the opportunity for voices to be heard coming from different directions. It's needed for a balanced view. If let's say a certain viewpoint is expelled from being heard, then the law in question is flawed by default.
I am certainly in favor for anyone to express any political viewpoint they may have, with the exception of calling for killing someone. But that is ingrained in the law (at least in my country). And therefore calling for killing someone is undeniable dangerous speech, because our law (moral system) agreed upon it.
But the trouble is defining what is dangerous speech if we extend those boundaries, if the moral system of a culture has no homogenized point of view on a certain topic. And dangerous to whom? Arguing God does not exist is certainly dangerous to the Catholic Church. Should we therefore make it illegal?
