I
Here is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Please read it very closely. Note that it says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not mean that opinions cannot be discussed or contested, nor that I must give grade A to every unsubstantiated opinion and poorly reasoned argument. Neither does it mean that my criticism of your writing strategies and skills is mere “opinion” and only as good as yours.
II
Speaking of matters Constitutional, I have a question. As we know, Benjamin Franklin said before the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor of that colony on 11 November 1755: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. My question is, what do you think Americans mean – especially now that the Constitution has been gutted – when they say it is important to defend “our freedom?”
I am thinking that it may mean a) the rights of corporations to act unfettered; b) the right to abuse and encroach upon others; c) the right to a general feeling of entitlement; and/or d) the right to struggle against others for survival at a base and basic level. But what do you think?
Note: this question is inspired in comments thread on this post.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
I noticed I wrote a great deal in the previous thread, including something where it wasn’t clear that I was being sarcastic, but I think that some people have a view on the nature of truth that is odd indeed, and essentialistic.
The undermining of freedom of speech through the undermining of the constitution does not worry these people because they think that truth is an essentialistic entity. They must think that the measures that restrict freedom of speech are only restrictive to speculation and other crazy stuff, but not to truth (this is the simplistic and essentialistic notion of truth).
I think so because I got an impression from an American to whom I was recently writing. I kept writing, “Hey, you’re not attending to what I’m saying!”
and he would come back with a tone and content of, “Yes, I am — I’ve already got the Truth, and I’ve always had it. It’s an entirely obvious thing, this Truth-about-the-way-things-are, so obvious that it’s not necessary to articulate it clearly, if at all. Moreover, if you don’t like my attitude to you, then you are resisting Truth — which is the only truth there is! The only thing that anyone with integrity could do is to impose this Truth on you — but you have no soul and are determined to resist!”
It is important to “defend our freedom” from taking responsibility, or “Why do you hate America?”
Ah – so truth is always obvious and agreed upon by all in this view, and opinions are mere icing?!
Freedom from taking responsibility, YES. Good one.
Ah – so truth is always obvious and agreed upon by all in this view, and opinions are mere icing?!
Opinions are raised to the level of truth, combating other opinions as so much “non-truth.”
Ah yes – and since one’s opinions are sacred, other opinions are heresy.
Ah yes – and since one’s opinions are sacred, other opinions are heresy.
Possibly. But not only are other people’s opinions heresy, they are also not accompanied by your own excellent and cool feeling of emotional certainty that you had when you alighted upon them.
Therefore, they are not emotionally valid.