Censorship violates natural law through use of unethical force to restrict free speech instead of fostering open civil discourse aligned with ethical principles that could lead to mutual understanding
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Censorship robs Us of Our freedom to communicate, and defrauds the Ones kept from data. Indeed, censorship is grossly unEthical.
And while We're at it... The legal/governmental system is grossly unEthical - it's legal for Pfizer (and the rest) to lie, bait-and-switch, and otherwise defraud the public - with immunity! And that is just a single example of many thousands of unEthical things that are "legal." And don't get Me started on needed money to pay for justice...
Thus, being an Ethical One, I cannot consent to that whole system.
Classic! Thank you for this piece and laying out Natural Law principles. “If certain voices preach intolerance from a place of pain and ignorance shutting them down fuels more pain and ignorance.” So true! What is gained but more hatred, not understanding or reasoning. I love brought in karmic debt associated with Natural Law. I had a feeling you were going to write a classic piece on this subject. This is one to save for anytime censorship rears it’s “authoritarian” head, and that’s really the only head for it, no matter where it comes from. I put out last night my thoughts on this matter. It was focused more on what is lost in censorship when debate is stifled. I also look back at when taboo subjects were merely warned about but not censored. It’s called “They Came for Free Speech?” Again, another classic piece and I’m so glad you covered Natural Law, so many 💎
I'm no expert on your natural law, but I do know that freedom of speech is the right from which all other rights flow. Without free speech, you don't have the freedom to do anything except to obey.
I can’t tell you how with each post , I’m in tears to find a voice that integrates an “eyes wide open” worldview PLUS a solid grasp on metaphysical concepts. I have had to tear away from my lifelong lefty liberal allegiances just to remain brutally honest with unfolding realities and yet that left me floundering in a sea of fundamental spiritual dogma that I can’t bear. I hope this doesn’t sound judgy ; we all have our differences, which I respect. But this feels like home.
Could not have said it better myself, the trouble with censures is that they are busybodies attack from a position of lesser moral strength, from lower ground rather than higher-ground. Simply put; those who claim to fight against corporations and for hate-speech are fighting for autocracy and fascism of the ugliest sort.
Censorship is always favored by those who don't want to hear the censored information. What they somehow always fail to realize is the pendulum always swings. The information they deem "worthy" will eventually be censored and they will be against censorship. If you don't like to read, hear, see something, then don't. It's that simple. It's clear as day to see how censorship can cripple a nation or in this case, the globe. Thanks for laying this out in a simple and easy way to understand. Hopefully people will be able to see its negative effects on society.
Thanks, AD! I think, until they know what it feels like, they can't empathize. They just want the people they perceive as enemies silenced - whoever that "enemy" might be this week, or however someone is being positioned to appear to be "the enemy." But when you've had your voice taken away from you for years, you understand how traumatic it is, and you would never wish it upon anyone you might perceive as "your worst enemy." Obviously that statement leaves out anyone who is doing it to intentionally harm others. But we have to take that possibility into consideration as well. Regardless, it's simply wrong.
I agree, if you don't have differing opinions out there is open discussions, there's no progression. There is only an echo chamber. It's so important to talk to and have thoughtful conversations with people who have differing opinions than you so you can both open your minds to maybe something you didn't see before. Or at the very least, you continue to practice engaging with people who think differently than you. Still a win.
We now have this "all or nothing" society. You either think and do what I think and do or you shouldn't have rights. And a lot of these "all or nothing" opinions are formed on propaganda and not even fact! I'm guilty of reading a headline and allowing my emotions to take charge but what I've learned to do is wait a few more days until more details come out and there's more story available. Even when I form my opinion on an event, I still realize I most likely do NOT know the whole story and a certainly don't know these people personally. People fail to realize that the bigger powers that be PREY on your emotions, confusion, and now the common divisive nature of people.
I've been contemplating this topic for a few years and I struggle with the term 'free speech' because of the word play and inherent dis-chord it holds. At its root, censure is a crash course in substance animating form. Words are merely substance, how we choose to alchemise them through the rational mind creates the form; a tangible reflection of the integrity of our individual Will. These results reveal the war within that requires deeper healing and with it, the choice to attach to suffering or commit to Sovereignty.
Freedom is the physical expression of internal Sovereignty, which cannot be granted nor taken by another. Accessing Sovereignty also requires neutrality and in my observation most ideologies and beliefs with the word 'free' hold a charge, ensuring neutrality gets subconsciously surrendered. Every time free speech debates flare up, I'm hyper-sensitive to the frequency war and call to arms that is asking if we are going fight for our right to speak, or stand in our Sovereign knowing that only we can censor our Self.
I think about this every day! We need a new social media platform that stands uncensored. Instead of an advertising model, users could pay a low monthly fee. No ads, no data collection, full free speech that advances society. Like SStack but with better organization, search and interaction between users.
Hmm, 'natural law', they seemed to have named this wrong. If it was natural, I'd be more natural, right? Maybe this should be called 'aspirational law'.
Is there anything natural about ethics or morality? Those things seem subjective. Death is a natural law. It requires no reasoning or argumentation.
Allowing a free people to speak freely and hash out what is moral VS immoral seems to come pretty naturally to most freedom loving individuals. If you see an inherent problem with allowing people to speak freely maybe you’re not a member of that club.
I just found 'natural law' in this context confusing.
This is the first time I heard the phrase 'natural law'. It was an honest question. I just didn't understand why they chose to name it that. When I think of 'natural' I think of things outside the scope of morals and ethics.
I did look it up I still don't fully understand that, when I think of natural law, I think of more of nature and science. Like gravity, it just is. It isn't agreed upon, it isn't hashed out in a debate. That's natural to me.
Hey Russell, I finally had an opportunity to read through a lot of the source material provided 'The Starfire Codes'. I have a better understanding now about Natural Law and can clearly see its influence in the United States Constitution.
I'm better able to articulate what I was trying to say. I believe in freedom of expression, I regularly exercise my American rights. I'm happy for them, for sure! I just don't think they are natural.
If they were natural, we wouldn't need the Constitution to protect them, and even with the Constitution, those natural rights have not always been granted indiscriminately to all American citizens.
Pessimistically, I believe that without the Constitution, we would have all types of tyranny. I believe we need the Constitution to protect freedom of expression, because freedom of expression isn't natural.
It is much easier said that way. But, I've never considered that perspective. I now realize that I've long believed that all human behavior is natural; hate, love, control, submission... I'm intrigued.
Brilliant writing!
Thank you!
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Censorship robs Us of Our freedom to communicate, and defrauds the Ones kept from data. Indeed, censorship is grossly unEthical.
And while We're at it... The legal/governmental system is grossly unEthical - it's legal for Pfizer (and the rest) to lie, bait-and-switch, and otherwise defraud the public - with immunity! And that is just a single example of many thousands of unEthical things that are "legal." And don't get Me started on needed money to pay for justice...
Thus, being an Ethical One, I cannot consent to that whole system.
The Simplicity of Ethics (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-simplicity-of-ethics
Classic! Thank you for this piece and laying out Natural Law principles. “If certain voices preach intolerance from a place of pain and ignorance shutting them down fuels more pain and ignorance.” So true! What is gained but more hatred, not understanding or reasoning. I love brought in karmic debt associated with Natural Law. I had a feeling you were going to write a classic piece on this subject. This is one to save for anytime censorship rears it’s “authoritarian” head, and that’s really the only head for it, no matter where it comes from. I put out last night my thoughts on this matter. It was focused more on what is lost in censorship when debate is stifled. I also look back at when taboo subjects were merely warned about but not censored. It’s called “They Came for Free Speech?” Again, another classic piece and I’m so glad you covered Natural Law, so many 💎
Thank you so much!
I'm no expert on your natural law, but I do know that freedom of speech is the right from which all other rights flow. Without free speech, you don't have the freedom to do anything except to obey.
Great point. Gotta love that Mark Twain quote too. Thanks for sharing, and defending free speech.
Thanks!
I can’t tell you how with each post , I’m in tears to find a voice that integrates an “eyes wide open” worldview PLUS a solid grasp on metaphysical concepts. I have had to tear away from my lifelong lefty liberal allegiances just to remain brutally honest with unfolding realities and yet that left me floundering in a sea of fundamental spiritual dogma that I can’t bear. I hope this doesn’t sound judgy ; we all have our differences, which I respect. But this feels like home.
Jade, I'm tearing up. I'm honored. Thank you so much. I am so happy you're here!! 🙏🏻💜💫
Almost as if futher polarizing the groups is entirely the point of the exercise... 🤔
🎯
Could not have said it better myself, the trouble with censures is that they are busybodies attack from a position of lesser moral strength, from lower ground rather than higher-ground. Simply put; those who claim to fight against corporations and for hate-speech are fighting for autocracy and fascism of the ugliest sort.
Censorship is always favored by those who don't want to hear the censored information. What they somehow always fail to realize is the pendulum always swings. The information they deem "worthy" will eventually be censored and they will be against censorship. If you don't like to read, hear, see something, then don't. It's that simple. It's clear as day to see how censorship can cripple a nation or in this case, the globe. Thanks for laying this out in a simple and easy way to understand. Hopefully people will be able to see its negative effects on society.
Thanks, AD! I think, until they know what it feels like, they can't empathize. They just want the people they perceive as enemies silenced - whoever that "enemy" might be this week, or however someone is being positioned to appear to be "the enemy." But when you've had your voice taken away from you for years, you understand how traumatic it is, and you would never wish it upon anyone you might perceive as "your worst enemy." Obviously that statement leaves out anyone who is doing it to intentionally harm others. But we have to take that possibility into consideration as well. Regardless, it's simply wrong.
I agree, if you don't have differing opinions out there is open discussions, there's no progression. There is only an echo chamber. It's so important to talk to and have thoughtful conversations with people who have differing opinions than you so you can both open your minds to maybe something you didn't see before. Or at the very least, you continue to practice engaging with people who think differently than you. Still a win.
We now have this "all or nothing" society. You either think and do what I think and do or you shouldn't have rights. And a lot of these "all or nothing" opinions are formed on propaganda and not even fact! I'm guilty of reading a headline and allowing my emotions to take charge but what I've learned to do is wait a few more days until more details come out and there's more story available. Even when I form my opinion on an event, I still realize I most likely do NOT know the whole story and a certainly don't know these people personally. People fail to realize that the bigger powers that be PREY on your emotions, confusion, and now the common divisive nature of people.
Thanks for speaking out on this! Love your posts
We need to bring back civil discourse. If we don't, we are headed for an extremely dark place, unfortunately. Thank you so much!
This is why The First Amendment is so foundational to a functioning and peaceful society. It is the first rule of natural law.
I've been contemplating this topic for a few years and I struggle with the term 'free speech' because of the word play and inherent dis-chord it holds. At its root, censure is a crash course in substance animating form. Words are merely substance, how we choose to alchemise them through the rational mind creates the form; a tangible reflection of the integrity of our individual Will. These results reveal the war within that requires deeper healing and with it, the choice to attach to suffering or commit to Sovereignty.
Freedom is the physical expression of internal Sovereignty, which cannot be granted nor taken by another. Accessing Sovereignty also requires neutrality and in my observation most ideologies and beliefs with the word 'free' hold a charge, ensuring neutrality gets subconsciously surrendered. Every time free speech debates flare up, I'm hyper-sensitive to the frequency war and call to arms that is asking if we are going fight for our right to speak, or stand in our Sovereign knowing that only we can censor our Self.
Agree times infinity! Well said.
I think about this every day! We need a new social media platform that stands uncensored. Instead of an advertising model, users could pay a low monthly fee. No ads, no data collection, full free speech that advances society. Like SStack but with better organization, search and interaction between users.
Hmm, 'natural law', they seemed to have named this wrong. If it was natural, I'd be more natural, right? Maybe this should be called 'aspirational law'.
Is there anything natural about ethics or morality? Those things seem subjective. Death is a natural law. It requires no reasoning or argumentation.
Allowing a free people to speak freely and hash out what is moral VS immoral seems to come pretty naturally to most freedom loving individuals. If you see an inherent problem with allowing people to speak freely maybe you’re not a member of that club.
Last I checked, "self-evident" might mean "obvious as fuck." You know... in the parlance of our times.... 🤣
😂
I just found 'natural law' in this context confusing.
This is the first time I heard the phrase 'natural law'. It was an honest question. I just didn't understand why they chose to name it that. When I think of 'natural' I think of things outside the scope of morals and ethics.
I did look it up I still don't fully understand that, when I think of natural law, I think of more of nature and science. Like gravity, it just is. It isn't agreed upon, it isn't hashed out in a debate. That's natural to me.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/r?entry=/entries/natural-law-theories/
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/r?entry=/entries/natural-law-ethics/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
https://ia601702.us.archive.org/22/items/natural-law-transcripts/Natural%20Law%20Transcripts.pdf
It may take me a while to get through these, but I like learning.
Thank you for the resources. I'll take a look.
This is outside the scope of morals and ethics. I’m not sure how else to explain it to you so you’ll understand.
Okay, I'll keep thinking on it.
Hey Russell, I finally had an opportunity to read through a lot of the source material provided 'The Starfire Codes'. I have a better understanding now about Natural Law and can clearly see its influence in the United States Constitution.
I'm better able to articulate what I was trying to say. I believe in freedom of expression, I regularly exercise my American rights. I'm happy for them, for sure! I just don't think they are natural.
If they were natural, we wouldn't need the Constitution to protect them, and even with the Constitution, those natural rights have not always been granted indiscriminately to all American citizens.
Pessimistically, I believe that without the Constitution, we would have all types of tyranny. I believe we need the Constitution to protect freedom of expression, because freedom of expression isn't natural.
It is just as easy to say that we need to protect it because others behave unnaturally by attempting to control us.
It is much easier said that way. But, I've never considered that perspective. I now realize that I've long believed that all human behavior is natural; hate, love, control, submission... I'm intrigued.
I'll think on it further.