PPS5 Free Speech and Free Interpretation

G'day,

Today I want to talk about free speech and the freedom of interpretation.

Free speech is the ability to speak without restrictions or harassment from other people. Freedom of speech is like the air that we breathe, it is essential for the sustainment of life.

The only justifiable limitation of free speech is on speech that threatens or incites physical violence. Any other proposed limitation to free speech is short-sighted and anti-life. Such proposals are only made by people who don't want to listen to views or opinions that oppose their own. And as for government intervention in free speech, only an unpleasant totalitarian government would seek to restrict free speech.

That said, let us now turn to what lies beyond free speech, and that is the freedom of interpretation.

While it may seem obvious that one intrinsically has the freedom to interpret speech in any way that one wants, it does not seem to be obvious to everyone. Some people seem to think that they are bound by the literal meaning of the words or that if an insult is intended that they must invoke the knee-jerk response of being insulted.

Speech is just a part of communication and there are two parts to communication.

There is a transmitter and there is a receiver.

Communication is the transmission of words from the transmitter to the receiver.

There is also the intent of the transmitter and the interpretation by the receiver.

They are not necessarily the same thing.

The purpose of communication is to exchange information; so that the receiver of the communication has the opportunity to learn something from the transmitter, this may constitute something about the world or perhaps about the transmitter him or herself.

So for example, if someone is vehemently opposed to free speech one might infer that the person has a naive understanding of the world or perhaps has some personal agenda.

From the perspective of the transmitter a communication can be usefully separated into two parts:

1. The intention of the transmitter.

2. The literal meaning of the words. The literal meaning can be taken to be the meaning of the words if they were spoken by a sober judge.

From the perspective of the receiver, the interpretation of a communication can be usefully separated into three parts.

1. The interpretation of the intention of the transmitter; this can be anything from an intended instruction to an intended joke.

2. The literal meaning of the words.

3. The interpretation of the words by the receiver.

The interpretation of the communication as made by the receiver does not have to be aligned with the intention of the transmitter nor does it have to be in accord with the literal meaning of the words.

One has a free choice in interpreting any transmitted communication. It is a free choice of whether one wants to be offended or put-down or amused or amazed or entertained or intrigued or whatever. Then having chosen how to interpret the transmission one can then choose how to respond; such as with laughter, an insult, a witty remark, agreement, refutation or simply silence.

I will go over a few points and examples of possible freedoms of interpretation.

For example, if one considers that the transmitter is giving orders or instructions, this can be interpreted as a suggestion with which one may or may not act in accord.

One doesn't have to take the literal meaning of the words as the intended meaning one can consider that it is just a joke or a flippant remark or perhaps that the words are merely a cliche or perhaps without any meaning at all.

This applies to writings too; even if they are claimed to be sacred writings or philosophical treatises, one has the freedom of choice to interpret them as being fictitious or perhaps personal opinions or what ever one likes. Essentially they are simply communications.

Or it may be that one infers that the transmitter is communicating what they consider to be facts about the world, and certainly one can choose to accept them as facts but one can also choose to consider them to be only possibilities until one has the chance to verify them for oneself.

Language does not determine the way the world is, the only use of language is for communication between people.

We are free to say what we like; and so too are we free ... to interpret what others say ..... in any way that we like.

Free speech and free interpretation are an integral part of rational communication and both are essential if we are to live in a harmonious world.

If you liked this video, please subscribe to my channel, give it a thumbs up and ring the bell.

Thank you.