Free speech possible without “dialectic”?


The idea that mass communicated speech, without dialectic, is either (a) not to be considered as being in a serious way “speech” or (b) to be considered as speech that is inherently unfree, and thus not to be protected, in either case, under the first amendment.

Thus, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, even if televised, would be considered free and protected speech, as it contained “dialectic”; while a commercial saying merely “vote no on proposition 11” would not be protected (for being mass-communicated while containing no dialectic); while a person telling his friends and neighbors to “vote no on prop eleven” would be protected speech (as, though not dialectic, it is also not mass-communicated).

(How might one determine whether or not speech contained “dialectic”? — What would be the test?)

* * *

A RE-REFORMATION (a reunion), in which the religions of the world would unite or reunite (all religions? all Christian religions?) to re-establish the question of religion, to cast in more vivid colors where we are now: supposing all religion is equally right or equally wrong, what are its principles, what is the alternative, what is its justification? What is the worldliness that is the opposite of all these religions? (is it “worldliness” that is the opposite?)


%d bloggers like this: