> The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.
See, you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability (defamation).
Defamation, libel, etc. laws are necessary to prevent abuse of speech to the point it causes financial damage via falsehoods.
However, it does not require government censorship and prior restraint which is what the UK Government is advocating.
----
EDIT (to get around post timer, this is the last time I'm responding to you because your argument is just disingenuous at best):
...that is such a disingenuous argument that I'm assuming you are just are oblivious.
> So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted.
No one is suggesting people are suddenly immune to contract law or NDAs, which solve this problem. You simply sue such people for breech of contract until its not financially profitable to sell such information.
> And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship.
...no?
NDAs also solve this problem and/or a requirement for NDAs.
The problem with free speech restriction is not that you can't ask people to sign NDAs in return for a job. The problem with free speech restrictions is when it restraints everyone.
I really don't think you are getting the concept that:
A) Everyone has a right to exercise their freedom of speech without restriction.
B) If they lie, break a contractual obligation, or otherwise cause destruction...they can still be forced to suffer civil financial penalties via the Courts to deter such activities without massive justification. None of this requires Government censorship beyond "NHS employees must sign NDAs" [e.g. Snowden would have stayed in the US if he would have been bankrupted rather than thrown in prison for decades, I bet]
you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability
It seems that you are casually ignoring the points I made in my third and fourth paragraphs.
Anyway, you can argue against the UK's new laws without requiring complete purism in freedom of speech. But my point was that an absolutist stance is simplistic. So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted. They can't lose their jobs - or even suffer reduced chance of advancement - because that would be seen as a punishment, a restriction of speech.
iscrimination point I raised.
And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship.
There's all sorts of sticky areas where extreme purist views get sullied from contact with the real world.
See, you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability (defamation).
Defamation, libel, etc. laws are necessary to prevent abuse of speech to the point it causes financial damage via falsehoods.
However, it does not require government censorship and prior restraint which is what the UK Government is advocating.
----
EDIT (to get around post timer, this is the last time I'm responding to you because your argument is just disingenuous at best):
...that is such a disingenuous argument that I'm assuming you are just are oblivious.
> So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted.
No one is suggesting people are suddenly immune to contract law or NDAs, which solve this problem. You simply sue such people for breech of contract until its not financially profitable to sell such information.
> And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship.
...no?
NDAs also solve this problem and/or a requirement for NDAs.
The problem with free speech restriction is not that you can't ask people to sign NDAs in return for a job. The problem with free speech restrictions is when it restraints everyone.
I really don't think you are getting the concept that:
A) Everyone has a right to exercise their freedom of speech without restriction.
B) If they lie, break a contractual obligation, or otherwise cause destruction...they can still be forced to suffer civil financial penalties via the Courts to deter such activities without massive justification. None of this requires Government censorship beyond "NHS employees must sign NDAs" [e.g. Snowden would have stayed in the US if he would have been bankrupted rather than thrown in prison for decades, I bet]