Overview

• 3L’s Aspirational Values place great value in using words truthfully, kindly and wisely. We should always seek to uplift others, tolerate differences and bring peace with all our thoughts, words and actions.
• We must defend all freedoms at the edges where most people do not tread. There is no need to protect free speech in the case of popular speech. It is the most unpopular or vile speech that affords us the opportunity to preserve the right to free speech. We can simultaneously persuade and inspire people to use their words more wisely.
• Governments may not censor speech, but private property owners may on their own property.

Applying the Legal Principle

• Government censorship and discrimination
  • The “right” to freedom of speech is enforceable only against the government, meaning governments may not censor what people say on either private or public property. Governments can never have any greater rights than those held by the people who delegate their rights to the government.
  • Honorably protecting the indispensable right to speech free from government censorship, including the most unpopular or offensive speech, is entirely unrelated to agreeing with the content of what is said. We must always be aware of the critical difference between the concepts; what is legal and what is moral. One can and should defend the legal right of a white supremacist to spew moronic hate speech free from government censorship, so long as the speaker is not violating any aspect of the Legal Principle.
  • We must also restrict governments from being able to discriminate. This is because, unlike most individuals and private corporations, all governments today aggress; they are already more powerful than they should be.
• Speech on private property
  • Offensive speech does not violate the Legal Principle but that does not mean offensive speech should be encouraged or even permitted on private property. Private property owners can make any rules about speech they prefer, including entirely banning whatever they consider offensive speech.
  • There is no right to freedom of speech on the private property of others, including wholly private internet platforms. Each of us enters or uses the private property of others subject to their rules, including the right to ban all aspects of speech, including unreasonable, unfair, or foolish content-based restrictions.
  • Nobody has a right not to be offended by the mere speech of others. Offending another person solely by uttering words never violates the Legal Principle. It is never the speaker’s words that cause a person to be offended, but rather the insulted person’s chosen response to the speaker’s words. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Our emotions are our choice. They stem from our thinking; our framing of each situation. Instead of being offended by the insult, we can choose to reframe and pity the insulter for their inability to act decently.
  • There are many ways to discredit or ignore offensive speech peacefully. Passing laws to outlaw speech we find appalling results in violating the Legal Principle because it aggresses against peaceful but offensive people.
  • Issues can arise regarding what is private or public property because the government is wrongfully issuing special privileges and immunities to favored private corporations. We should terminate all such special privileges and immunities to resolve this issue.
• Speech that violates the Legal Principle
  • Speech used to perpetrate fraud or coercion breaches the Legal Principle.
  • Speech intended to inspire others to imminently violate the Legal Principle by inciting a riot has also previously been held not to be protected speech under certain circumstances.
• **Grey areas, where reasonable minds disagree**
  • Precisely identifying the point at which fraud or coercion exists can be tricky.
  • Reasonable minds can disagree about whether mere speech employed to birth a conspiracy to intentionally violate the Legal Principle, such as a conspiracy to commit murder, is appropriately prohibited. Typically, to prove the crime of conspiracy in court there must be some overt act in addition to mere speech.
  • Where exactly hostile speech crosses the line into the crime of “disorderly conduct” (causing unreasonable harm) is also a matter of some reasonable debate.
  • The noise of speech may be deemed a trespass if excessive. For example, a loud speech at 3 am using amplified sound in the middle of a quiet, populated neighborhood violates the LP because of the unreasonable trespassing of sound.
  • Letting local communities determine all grey areas is the appropriate solution. A free and open marketplace of ideas is the best way for good ideas to gain popularity while exposing the flaws in bad ideas for all to consider and reject.

Applying the Aspirational Values

• There is no doubt that mere speech can violate many of the Aspirational Values.