These areas of human discourse strike me as played out in standard philosophy and confused entirely in taught false conciousness. The work involved to sort it out is as heavy as the first sentence here, which could mean almost anything or nothing. 1. There is a big literature on free speech 2. Hardly anyone reads it 3. Who wrote and published the work? Who has read it? Does knowing this material and being accredited by education as a knower give one the right of free speech on free speech - if so does this also create a group of people who can't speak on free speech in some conditions because they are unqualified? 4. People who don't know how to count, what tensor equations are or that you can entangle a single photon are all in some sense "not free" to speak about physics
We could probably write down hundreds and thousands of points like the above. Are mute people free to speak? This kind of 'deconstruction' might be the start of a big data, data driven approach - or it might be pisswittering, pettifogging and so on. Way down the line, one can feel one has some kind of "right to be heard" - but often these situations are nothing to do with anyone listening. Courtrooms have little to do with it for sure - they are like Oedipal dramas I get paid to talk so why should I do any free-speaking, especially casting pearl before you swine! Imagine what some people would make of this little nudge - what makes me 'free' to say it to you guys? Why would some idiot feed inedible bits of oysters to pigs? Locally, one of my old universities is being run into the ground by a sexist crook. He has just sacked the union rep and his wife. Thousands of abused kids are still not getting the help they need across my country, and I suspect a massive problem involving dire cops, hapless social workers and a load of people getting paid to sort such problems out who cover them and the incompetence up at every level. Often to get any free speech one needs the power and equipment to do a substantial enquiry. There's a lot we could talk about and even help to fix. Of course, I could teach everyone enough economic "answers" to get a decent degree for you guys (what a thrill for us all!), but I'm not free to get rid of the subject. Interesting I could teach the right lying and not how to be free of control fraud delusions. On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 6:54:05 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > As far as I can tell, right to be heard applies in courtrooms, consumer > issues, and labor unions. Not sure what you mean about this facilitator. > Does everyone in the group have a right to be heard? What inhibits the > right to be heard? How would someone know if they were not heard? Is the > mandate to respond to every voice implied? > > On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 12:13:19 PM UTC-4, Molly wrote: >> >> right to be heard is an interesting notion >> >> On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 12:05:25 PM UTC-4, facilitator wrote: >>> >>> Part of the problem, (if in fact there is a problem), is that people >>> tend to confuse free speech with the "right to be heard". >>> >>> The right to remain silent is also a part of free speech as is visual >>> speech such as art or cartoons. >>> >>> In human history free speech is a very new attribute of society, heck we >>> once thought we were being invaded by Martians not too long ago. >>> >>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
