That's incorrect. The argument in favor of free speech is a very old one. Classical liberalism, during the enlightenment, was predicated upon universality and inalienable rights.
The guest speaker is not arguing anything original; he's simply restating the universals that were promulgated during the enlightenment. We all have a right to self expression, and no special interest group, LGTBQ or otherwise, or state or individual has a right to legislate my speech using the shackles of the common good, which, incidentally, is precisely the argument the postmodernist neo-marxists make. They want to create lists of speech, that which is permissible and that which isn't, because, like Marx and Bentham, they are selfish enough to place their conception of the common good above individual rights.
The classical view is still the correct view. And I'm glad the speaker realizes that.
That's incorrect. The argument in favor of free speech is a very old one. Classical liberalism, during the enlightenment, was predicated upon universality and inalienable rights.
The guest speaker is not arguing anything original; he's simply restating the universals that were promulgated during the enlightenment. We all have a right to self expression, and no special interest group, LGTBQ or otherwise, or state or individual has a right to legislate my speech using the shackles of the common good, which, incidentally, is precisely the argument the postmodernist neo-marxists make. They want to create lists of speech, that which is permissible and that which isn't, because, like Marx and Bentham, they are selfish enough to place their conception of the common good above individual rights.
The classical view is still the correct view. And I'm glad the speaker realizes that.
Bentham was certainly critical of a bill of rights