Questions about the early strip and Sapphire Guard

[Fyraltari]

Speaking of transport arrangments, where did they get those witnesses for the trial?

[Peelee]

In any country in the world you can be prosecuted if you blab state secrets, no matter how free their speech may be. Quoting real-world examples would be taking us into real-world politics, though. Azure City having something so secret that you'll be prosecuted if you reveal it does not mean the city has no free speech at all.

No, what makes it mean that the city doesn't have free speech is the fact the comic states it does not.

I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive. Statement A is "revealing state secrets is a crime." Statement B is "Azure City does not have free speech." The two can exist together just as well as they can independently of each other. At worst, "this society does not have free speech" is an argument that is irrelevant to the fact that revealing state secrets is a crime, but that does not make it any less true (assuming it is true, and we have no reason to assume the opposite).

[Lacuna Caster]

Simply saying "the comic is wrong about this" requires something other than factotum, martianmister, Keltest or your assertion thereof.

Hey, I've got no dog in this fight. (I mean, I do have my own imaginary headcanon about Shojo's attitude/policies on censorship, but I'm not claiming to have specific proof about it.)

[Kish]

factotum, what is your definition of free speech? From your posts, the closest I can figure it is that it's either "no more restrictive in terms of what you can say than some unstated real-world country," or "not established as more restrictive in terms of what you can say than some unstated real-world country," or (looking at the phrase "no free speech at all") possibly "you are able to choose some of the things you say rather than all of them being dictated to you before you speak."

[martianmister]

How can Shojo claim that he's a Good aligned ruler if he doesn't even gave his citizens freedom of speech?

[Fyraltari]

How can Shojo claim that he's a Good aligned ruler if he doesn't even gave his citizens freedom of speech?

Because freedom of speech isn't a requirement to be a Lawful Good nation?

[Emanick]

So, to reiterate, “freedom of speech” is not a binary concept. Absolute freedom of speech is something that I think no country on Earth allows. At the same time, you’re allowed to say some things wherever you are.

The fact that the lawyer suggests Azure City doesn’t have “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean “there is no freedom of speech” in the sense that you are not allowed to say anything, obviously. It means that there are limits on the right to speak freely. The only limit we know about is that you are not allowed to discuss certain state secrets. There may easily be others, but there do not necessarily have to be, and the lawyer’s statement does not require that we assume that.

What it may imply is that there is no constitutional right to freedom of speech in Azure City. (Which would be unsurprising, since we don’t even know if the realm has a constitution or a list of the enumerated rights of citizens.) However, if so, that does not necessarily mean that there are, in practice, significant restrictions on speech for ordinary people. In fact, I would suggest that it is unlikely that too many restrictions could exist before the regime ceased to be Lawful Good, which the lawyer states that it is.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The fact that the lawyer suggests Azure City doesn’t have “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean “there is no freedom of speech” in the sense that you are not allowed to say anything, obviously. It means that there are limits on the right to speak freely.

In fact, what it means is that any citizen may, at any time, be prosecuted and punished for what they say. Not that "there are limits" to what they can say, but that anything they say at any time can be used as a reason for punishment.

How can Shojo claim that he's a Good aligned ruler if he doesn't even gave his citizens freedom of speech?

Because like all power, the morality of it is dependent on how it is used. If Shojo does not prosecute anyone for calling him names, and in general allows his citizens to speak their mind, then that is Good. Could it be enshrined in a constitution? Sure, but that is not necessary to act in a Good manner.

It's like saying "how can a Paladin be Good, if they have the power to kill innocents?". Well, because what makes you good or bad is how you use the powers you have, not the fact you have the power itself.

Grey Wolf

[factotum]

In fact, what it means is that any citizen may, at any time, be prosecuted and punished for what they say. Not that "there are limits" to what they can say, but that anything they say at any time can be used as a reason for punishment.

Which is where there is a disconnect here. I've never said that governments can't restrict what people say--in fact, I made the statement earlier that there is no real-world country where you can just go and blab state secrets without being arrested and prosecuted for it. I don't believe that Azure City is the "you say anything we don't like you're going to jail" police state you're making it out to be, though--the little we saw of the Azure City citizen's life certainly never suggested they were in fear they might say something wrong and be arrested.

[Fyraltari]

Which is where there is a disconnect here. I've never said that governments can't restrict what people say--in fact, I made the statement earlier that there is no real-world country where you can just go and blab state secrets without being arrested and prosecuted for it. I don't believe that Azure City is the "you say anything we don't like you're going to jail" police state you're making it out to be, though--the little we saw of the Azure City citizen's life certainly never suggested they were in fear they might say something wrong and be arrested.

I have known US citizen state that my homeland does not have freedom of speech because you can be prosecuted for expressing certain ideas (hate speech and history revisionnism that is).
Ask any Frechman and they would definitely tell you that we have free speech, so maybe that's what the comic meant.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't believe that Azure City is the "you say anything we don't like you're going to jail" police state you're making it out to be, though

"I believe" is not an actual valid argumentative position. Canon is what canon says it is.

Also, the lack of freedom of speech does not turn a place into a police state, nor have I "made it out to be". If there is a disconnect, it is in your assumptions of what it means that there is no freedom of speech. It could become one, certainly, but like any law or lack thereof, it is all in how it is used.

Grey Wolf

[martianmister]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say everything you want. It means freedom to have different opinions and freedom to express these opinions. A country without freedom of speech can't be good aligned, in the same way a country with slavery can't be good.

[Peelee]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say everything you want. It means freedom to have different opinions and freedom to express these opinions. A country without freedom of speech can't be good aligned, in the same way a country with slavery can't be good.

Slavery is inherently bad. Not being allowed to state certain opinions is not inherently bad.

[Keltest]

Slavery is inherently bad. Not being allowed to state certain opinions is not inherently bad.

Using force to suppress the expression of those opinions is inherently bad though, which is the only way a state could actually prevent such opinions from being stated.

[Peelee]

Using force to suppress the expression of those opinions is inherently bad though, which is the only way a state could actually prevent such opinions from being stated.

If I declare that Sarris was correct to eliminate the Thermian race, and I am aware that a law existed prohibiting speaking in favor of genocide, is it inherently bad for the government to arrest me?

[Keltest]

If I declare that Sarris was correct to eliminate the Thermian race, and I am aware that a law existed prohibiting speaking in favor of genocide, is it inherently bad for the government to arrest me?

Yes? Having an unpopular or morally wrong opinion is not, in itself, particularly harmful to others or to society. If you start acting on it or inciting other crimes through your expression of opinion, that becomes a problem, at which point the government can step in without moral issue.

[Fyraltari]

Yes? Having an unpopular or morally wrong opinion is not, in itself, particularly harmful to others or to society. If you start acting on it or inciting other crimes through your expression of opinion, that becomes a problem, at which point the government can step in without moral issue.

I don't know the first thing about the example Peelee used, but I'll say that I believe that "group X doesn't deserve to exist" is not a statement that I would like to see go unpunished.

"Freedom ends where those of other starts" means, in my humble opinion, that you can't use you are not free to try to deny, even only by speech, anybody else's freedom.

[Kish]

Can we stay focused on what the indicated laws of Azure City are, not what the laws of an ideal society would be? I'd rather the thread didn't get locked for being taken over by real-world politics.

[martianmister]

As I said before, "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say everything you want." Prohibiting hate speech had nothing to do with the lack of freedom of speech.

[Peelee]

Yes? Having an unpopular or morally wrong opinion is not, in itself, particularly harmful to others or to society. If you start acting on it or inciting other crimes through your expression of opinion, that becomes a problem, at which point the government can step in without moral issue.

I disagree. Not that having an unpopular or morally wrong opinion is not itself harmful, but that prohibiting wrong opinions from being expressed is wrong itself. There is at least one notable real-world example I would love to pull out here, but alas.

I don't know the first thing about the example Peelee used

You should check out Galaxy Quest.

[Fyraltari]

Can we stay focused on what the indicated laws of Azure City are, not what the laws of an ideal society would be? I'd rather the thread didn't get locked for being taken over by real-world politics.

Yes. I just wnated to point out that everyone doesn't operate under the same understanding of "freedom of speech" and it got out of hands. My bad*.
Back to Azure City... I have nothing to say.

You should check out Galaxy Quest.

I'll try. Thanks for the recommendation.

*Man, am I bad for this thread.

[Peelee]

I'll try. Thanks for the recommendation.

It's fantastic. It was voted the 7th best Star Trek movie. By Trekkies.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

A country without freedom of speech can't be good aligned, in the same way a country with slavery can't be good.

Opinion. Which I disagree with. And more importantly for the topic at hand, one which the comic disagrees with.

Edit: as far as I can tell, you are attempting to declare that the only way a society can ever be good is if it maximizes the liberty of its subjects. That is simply as wrong as saying that the only way an individual can be good is if they maximize their personal liberty. For example, a society without freedom of speech that nevertheless ensures that there is no poverty is Good. You may not want to live there, but you are not the ultimate arbitrer of what Good is.

GW

[martianmister]

Edit: as far as I can tell, you are attempting to declare that the only way a society can ever be good is if it maximizes the liberty of its subjects. That is simply as wrong as saying that the only way an individual can be good is if they maximize their personal liberty.

Existence of freedom of speech is the minimum requirement for the exidtence of liberty. A society with no freedom of speech is no different from a society with slavery.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Existence of freedom of speech is the minimum requirement for the exidtence of liberty. A society with no freedom of speech is no different from a society with slavery.

No, that is a false equivalence. And, as I said, your opinion.

GW

[hroþila]

You guys talking about freedom of speech like it's a yes/no switch.

[Lacuna Caster]

Slavery is inherently bad. Not being allowed to state certain opinions is not inherently bad.

Technically, no. But it's a little like saying that the right to execution without trial isn't inherently bad. You know, if the monarch is sufficiently well-meaning, they might only use it on people that really deserve it.

I actually incline to the view that freedom of speech actually is a vital part of a just society, up to and including the point where I'm highly skeptical of the value of state secrets. However, it's certainly true that most ancient societies did not really extend this right to the bulk of their citizens, or anyone, really. Then again, most ancient societies weren't exactly exemplars of lawful goodness. Then again, the premise behind Shojo's deception is that at least the azurite nobility have enough rights and privileges that pissing them off substantially is a bad idea. Is there some kind of azurite Magna Carta in effect? Who knows.

[Emanick]

In fact, what it means is that any citizen may, at any time, be prosecuted and punished for what they say. Not that "there are limits" to what they can say, but that anything they say at any time can be used as a reason for punishment.

Nope. There is zero evidence that Azure City works that way. You are extrapolating far too much from a throwaway line from the lawyer. Your extremely narrow and specific interpretation of that line is not the only valid reading of it.

Once again: Freedom of speech is not a binary concept. The fact that an absolute, unrestricted constitutional right to freedom of speech does not appear to exist does not mean that the government claims the power to arrest anyone for saying anything. In fact, if it did, then that would present peculiar problems. In a scene that, unlike the above example, actually focuses on who the state can and cannot arrest, Hinjo specifically says that while he would love to arrest Kubota, the only surviving Azure City magistrate claims there is not enough evidence against Kubota to warrant a trial, despite the fact that Kubota is completely comfortable speaking critically to Hinjo's fact. So no, even the Lord of the City can't arrest Kubota for saying just anything - such as by questioning his right to appoint new nobles, which Kubota had just done.

Furthermore, the absence of an enumerated right to free speech does not require the existence of specific laws criminalizing particular types of speech. It seems likely that you have to commit a specific crime to be tried in Azure City's judicial system, and there's no evidence that any specific kinds of speech are criminalized besides leaking state secrets. Maybe treasonous speech is banned. Maybe promoting necromancy is banned - we know practicing it is. Who knows? But there's no evidence that speech is particularly restricted in the realm.

I mean, sure, you can try and invent ways around this. Maybe there is freedom of speech, but for the nobles, not the common people. Maybe Hinjo doesn't want to arrest Kubota for something more trivial than attempted regicide, because he's a Good Guy. But the most straightforward explanation is that no, the lawyer wasn't making an absolute statement about how Azure City's "Lawful Good" government claims the right to arrest anyone for saying anything - because why would he be? - he was simply stating that "just because this country is Lawful Good doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever you want."

Also, just think about it. Your reading of the lawyer's statement amounts to him basically saying "Just because this country is Lawful Good doesn't mean it doesn't claim the right to arrest anyone for saying anything, no matter what it is." That statement is, to say the least, bizarre. To say the most, it's definitely not what Lawful Good governments tend to do. LG governments, to the extent that they differ from other governments, focus on consistency and predictability in the legal system, and try not to make citizens live in fear of what the government might do next. If anyone can be seized for any reason, that's essentially the opposite of consistency, predictability, and, um, non-living in fear.

[Lacuna Caster]

Also, just think about it. Your reading of the lawyer's statement amounts to him basically saying "Just because this country is Lawful Good doesn't mean it doesn't claim the right to arrest anyone for saying anything, no matter what it is." That statement is, to say the least, bizarre. To say the most, it's definitely not what Lawful Good governments tend to do. LG governments, to the extent that they differ from other governments, focus on consistency and predictability in the legal system, and try not to make citizens live in fear of what the government might do next. If anyone can be seized for any reason, that's essentially the opposite of consistency, predictability, and, um, non-living in fear.

Just chipping in to say I largely agree with this.

[martianmister]

Emanick's post really takes the cake.