> Free speech is a good thing [...] even when it's illegal.
What do you mean? Illegal speech is, by definition, not free speech. Not all speech is free.
And why would it be good in general to say things in public that are illegal to say?
What do you mean? Illegal speech is, by definition, not free speech. Not all speech is free.
And why would it be good in general to say things in public that are illegal to say?
No one protesting an authoritarian regime or an unjust law is exercising free speech when its illegal to do so?
Books, art, music, any expression considered subversive by the state, none of that is free speech?
The law does not define free speech, it can only limit it, as any law can only limit rights, not define them. There is a great deal of historic precedent defending illegal speech as free speech.
What is the first amendment then? It’s also the other way around. Freedom of speech is defined as speech that has no negative legal ramifications, among other things. Look it up.
> So the American founding fathers weren’t engaging in free speech when they declared independence from England (an act of treason against the crown?)
Correct, as you pointed out. It was an act of treason from England’s legal point of view, punishable had they gone back to England. It was also written in the middle of a war, and is a declaration of secession. This is a pretty wild example to try to use. I’m confused what makes you think this is a demonstration of freedom of speech in any way? It’s almost completely the opposite, it’s a demonstration of successful speech against the law. England did not offer the freedom for this speech, and freedom of speech wasn’t establish in the United States as a legal concept until after the country was formed.
You seem to be confusing having strong reasons to take a moral stand with actual freedom. If there are negative legal consequences, then you don’t have freedom, by the definition of freedom. People can and do risk choosing to take actions knowing there are negative consequences, but that’s not the same thing as having the “freedom” to take those actions.
> Books, art, music, any expression considered subversive by the state, none of that is free speech?
“Considered subversive” and illegal aren’t the same thing. If it’s illegal, then you don’t have freedom to say it. When people say “America is a free country” they don’t mean you get to do anything at all, they mean we have fewer laws limiting personal freedoms than other countries. But there are still lots of illegal things you shouldn’t do that if you do will result in punishment.
> There is a great deal of historic precedent defending illegal speech as free speech.
No, there are some specific cases of speech, and some specific classes of speech, that were illegal and have been changed, and for good reasons. There are also types of speech that remain illegal and probably always will. Slander and libel, among others, are not protected classes of legal speech, for good reasons.
The first amendment defines the federal government's ability to "abridge (or limit) the freedom of speech (...)" Nowhere does it preface this with a statement like "the freedom of speech shall be defined as..." but rather it assumes the right already exists.
>I’m confused what makes you think this is a demonstration of freedom of speech in any way?
My argument is that freedom of speech is a universal right, as much as any right is universal, and that a legal framework can only diminish it but never define it or expand it.
>“Considered subversive” and illegal aren’t the same thing.
It can be under some authoritarian governments. One of the most powerful uses for freedom of speech (and freedom of the press) is criticizing governments and powerful entities. But what does freedom of speech even mean if the only criticism or forms of expression allowed are those permitted by the government?
> There are also types of speech that remain illegal and probably always will. Slander and libel, among others, are not protected classes of legal speech, for good reasons.
Yes, and I agree those reasons are good, for the most part, and necessary for a civil society. But they are also limitations on the freedom of speech, and not all such limitations are just.
This might be the heart of your confusion. I’m not arguing about what’s just or right at all. I’m talking about what freedom actually means, and the fact that, right or wrong, not all speech is allowed in public.
> Nowhere does [the first amendment] preface this with a statement like “the freedom of speech shall be defined as...”
That is correct, but it does start with the words “Congress shall make no laws...” which is an uber-law defining the idea that speech will have legal protection. Those five words are a constitutional directive that defines what “freedom” means in the term “freedom of speech” in the United States.
> My argument is that freedom of speech is a universal right
The principle of freedom of speech is the idea that most speech should be a universal right; that principle does not allow for all speech, and it is not universally recognized, therefore is is not a universal "right". It becomes a right and a freedom when the principle is recognized and protected by your government.
Freedom of speech is an explicitly stated goal for the US constitution, and also for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those documents are not recognized in all countries, and both documents have exceptions. In no case is there a blanket protection for any speech at all, anywhere in the world today.
> One of the most power uses for freedom of speech (and freedom of the press) is criticizing governments and powerful entities.
Again, you seem to have the misconception that “freedom of speech” is a term that is referring to speech that takes a moral stand against power or against the law. What you’re talking about is “speech”, not the principle of “freedom of speech”, nor the legal protections we call “freedom of speech”. If you might be sent to jail for saying it, then you aren’t enjoying freedom. The better term for this is “speaking to power”.
You seem to be referring to cases where people should have freedom of speech in principle, but don’t. The term “freedom of speech” is the term for the idea that most speech should or will be protected and allowed by law. That’s what the word “freedom” is referring to.
> But what does freedom of speech even mean if the only criticism or forms of expression allowed are those permitted by the government?
What would freedom of speech even mean if it's not permitted by the government?
In the US, freedom of speech means that a journalist is allowed to criticize the president’s public policy actions and not be sent to jail, for example. People are allowed to protest in public.
In China, journalists who criticize the legitimacy of the communist party are put in jail. In China, you are not allowed to use Facebook or Google, and people are jailed for attending public protests.
If you want to understand what our government means by speech that is permitted and protected by the government, you just have to look at other countries that don’t recognize those freedoms.