paraphrasing: '' A square has a law of four sides, we have the freedom to draw a square ''
Only freedom really exists in Truth
WITHOUT AN ABILITY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Some claim that in plural societies, no one can claim to speak the Truth. That Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Well, if that is true than they have no right to say it. There is no truth in untruth, and no rights in such a world. Rights cease to exist the moment we can not speak the truth. It is in the very nature of democracies and plural societies to seek and express truths, if we are incapable of doing this, then we lose all worthiness in anything and everything. Freedom ceases to exist.
Western societies are made not to make Truth pluralistic, but to find out the Truth. A society in which should seek the truth but denies the existance of Truth, is an unhealthy society as it does not even live up to its own establishment.
If we are all able to speak our mind. This should allow us to speak truthfully. We claim a right to speech so we can claim our position in truth. So we claim a personal right to truth. This in itself is a truth.
So how could it be that we all speak different truths within a truth? Indeed, a truth of every one's word as true, is untrue, because if everyone is true then there is no truth, just an endless realm of possibility.
To say there is an endless realm of possibility is to say that there is nothing worthy of truth. If nothing is worthy of truth, truth is worthless. If truth is worthless, then there is no right or wrong.
If truth is worthless, then the very right to speak truthfully is worthless.. Then the right to speak at all is also worthless.
Is this true? Is it true to say that Free Speech is worthless?
If you say that free speech is worthless, then you say that the speaker themselves are worthless.
If you say that the speaker themselves are worthless than it is neither right or wrong to eliminate the speaker, because there is no worth in the speaker speaking or not. So no freedom in their speech. To deny speech as worthy is to deny the freedom to speak against anything, as without a worthy speaker there is no truth in the speech, and there is no truth for them to speak freely.
If the speech is worthless, the honest notion of speech is worthless, if the honest notion of the language we speak is worthless, the one who recites the language is also worthless.
If there is no worth in the one who speaks, there is no worth in their freedom to speak or in their freedom at all.
Because for the one to speak to be full of worth, they must matter, and if there is no right and wrong, they do not matter, just as their honest language would not matter. So if there is no right and wrong in their speech, their speech is worthless, and their freedom could not be said to be right, as there is no worth in saying that there is any right or wrong in their freedom if there is no worth in truth itself.
If a totalitarian sovereignty takes away one's right to speech, they can just the same take the person away, as it would be assumed that the speech against it would be worthless.
If there is nothing worthy about speech, then there is nothing worthy about freedom, and surely nothing worthy about freedom of speech.
However!
If we value and believe speech to be worthy then we find Truth worthy.
If we find the other's speech to be worthy, then we find the source of the speech to also be worthy, the speaker.
If we find the other speaker is worthy, we find him worthy to speak truthfully.
If we find him worthy to speak truthfully, we find TRUTH worthy !
When we find that Truth is worthy, then there is freedom to speak the TRUTH, as there is worth in both Truth and Speaking, and thus the speaker has a freedom to speak truthfully.
It is only when we find TRUTH to be worthy that we find the others also to be worthy. As they are only worthy if they speak truthfully, and if they are worthy to speak truthfully, they are just as worthy as the next one to do so. A relationship between others is then shared.
When we find the others to be just as worthy, we find that we have a relationship of worthiness.
This relationship of worthiness allows us to recognize the FREEDOM of the worthy to speak TRUTH and thus to speak at all.
Indeed, all worthiness resides in Truth, and all Freedom resides in worthiness. If we have a relationship of worthy speakers, then they have the freedom to speak the truth.
It is only in TRUE speech that we get TRUE freedom as Freedom is not worthy if it there is no Truth.
Without truth there is no truth to the relationship. If there is no truth to relating to the other, there is no worth in the other. If there is no worth in the other, what is the worth of their freedom.
When we find it worthy for both Truth and speech, and thus the truth of the speaker, we find it worthy for a relationship of speakers with ourselves. From this, we find a common speech.
When we have a relationship, it is only true if it is worthy to relate to the other. If we find it worthy to relate to the other, then we find a worthy Truth. It is only in a Truth do we have a relationship. If we have a true relationship then we have a true communion to that relationship. If we have a true communion of relationships, we have a common truth. If we have a communion of truth, we find a common worth in speech. If we find a common worth in speech, we find a common speech of truth.
Meaning we have a common source of Truth as the speaker is worthy to speak truthfully only when he is recognized by the other to be worthy enough to do so and when speech itself is found to be truly worthy.
If nothing is worthy, there is no truth to their speech, and no truth in the relationship. The worthiness of the other is only worthy if there is a worthiness in truth.
If there is worthy in truth at all, then the source of that truth is most worthy to be spoken about truthfully, or there is no worth in truth at all.
If the truth of speakers is a relationship in speech and truth, then they must recognize a true source for that truth.
It is in the truth of the relationship that there is a source for that relationship. The source of that relationship must be true for all worthiness to be indeed worthy.
Just as the source of speech must come from a worthy speaker, the source of all truth must be worthy enough to be true.
Or everything is worthless, and there is no free speech and there is no value in the speaker because there is no value in TRUTH.
So the source of Truth is the source of all worthiness.
It is only in the worth of the other that we discover a relationship with the other. Within that relationship of the other we must go to the source to make the whole thing worthy at all.
So when we are given the freedom of speech, we are given the freedom to be truthful.
If there is no truth, then there is no worth of speech at all.
Only in the source of truth, and the recognition of truth do we find any worthiness at all.
So to deny TRUTH; you deny WORTH.
To deny WORTH. you deny RIGHT and WRONG.
To deny RIGHT and WRONG. You deny the WORTH of SPEECH.
If you deny the worth of speech. You deny the worthiness of the source of SPEECH.
If you deny the worthiness of the source of speech, you deny the source of any FREEDOM of the SPEAKER.
Otherwise all speakers CANCEL the other out, ELIMINATING TRUTH and ELIMINATING the RIGHT TO SPEAK.
ONLY WITH TRUTH, DOES THE SPEAKER MATTER. So there MUST be Truth for us to have a right to speak.
