Return to Answer

This may end up in the realm of political philosophy rather than politics per se, but you're basically talking about the difference between de jure (in the law) and de facto (in reality).

There's two things going on here that need to be acknowledged:

1. The government is not infringing the victim's freedom. In that sense they have the freedom of speech, de jure.

2. An act of violence is being perpetrated by their fellow citizens, from which (we assume, since you do not mention) the state is not shielding/rescuing them. This means the state has de facto ceded its responsibility to the arresting organization. This means either that organization is de facto legitimately acting on behalf of the government, which invalidates #1, above and your answer becomes "No, it does not." Or the state is impotent to enforce its own laws.

In the latter case, it's less a question of "does the country have free speech?" and more a question of "Does the country meaningfully exist in the first place?"

This overlaps with the difference between "Positive" and "Negative" freedoms. Positive freedoms are those which the government does not, itself, restrain. Free Speech, in the United States and elsewhere, is this type. The government may not interfere with your right to speak on matters of politics, etc.

A Negative Freedom means something which not only will the government not prevent you from, but it will not tolerate any others to interfere with it, either. Freedom to go about your business without fear of violence is this type. I speak about the United States, since that's what I know, but in the U.S. it's a crime to even threaten to use force against someone (known as assault, actually using said force is battery).

Where these intersect can sometimes seem blurry, but it boils down to: You have the positive right to free speech, and the negative right to be free from violence - even from your fellow citizens - as a consequence of that speech. But you do NOT have a negative right to free speech, your fellow citizens may de-platform you, shout you down, and socially shun you to their heart's content.

This may end up in the realm of political philosophy rather than politics per se, but you're basically talking about the difference between de jure (in the law) and de facto (in reality).

There's two things going on here that need to be acknowledged:

1. The government is not infringing the victim's freedom. In that sense they have the freedom of speech, de jure.

2. An act of violence is being perpetrated by their fellow citizens, from which (we assume, since you do not mention) the state is not shielding/rescuing them. This means the state has de facto ceded its responsibility to the arresting organization. This means either that organization is de facto legitimately acting on behalf of the government, which invalidates #1, above and your answer becomes "No, it does not." Or the state is impotent to enforce its own laws.

In the latter case, it's less a question of "does the country have free speech?" and more a question of "Does the country meaningfully exist in the first place?"

This overlaps with the difference between "Positive" and "Negative" rights. Positive rights are those things which society is obliged to provide/create for you - e.g. in the United States you have, when arrested, the positive right to competent counsel (the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the state is obligated to provide you with a public defender). Negative rights are those which the government of a society is obliged to not interfere in, but your fellow citizens are not required to provide it to you.

Your right to free speech is the latter. Your right to be free from violence by your fellow citizens is the former (manifested as police making arrests of people who commit such violence).

This may end up in the realm of political philosophy rather than politics per se, but you're basically talking about the difference between de jure (in the law) and de facto (in reality).

There's two things going on here that need to be acknowledged:

1. The government is not infringing the victim's freedom. In that sense they have the freedom of speech, de jure.

2. An act of violence is being perpetrated by their fellow citizens, from which (we assume, since you do not mention) the state is not shielding/rescuing them. This means the state has de facto ceded its responsibility to the arresting organization. This means either that organization is de facto legitimately acting on behalf of the government, which invalidates #1, above and your answer becomes "No, it does not." Or the state is impotent to enforce its own laws.

In the latter case, it's less a question of "does the country have free speech?" and more a question of "Does the country meaningfully exist in the first place?"

This overlaps with the difference between "Positive" and "Negative" freedoms. Positive freedoms are those which the government does not, itself, restrain. Free Speech, in the United States and elsewhere, is this type. The gov't may not interfere with your right to speak on matters of politics, etc.

A Negative Freedom means something which not only will the gov't not prevent you from, but it will not tolerate any others to interfere with it, either. Freedom to go about your business without fear of violence is this type. I speak about the United States, since that's what I know, but in the U.S. it's a crime to even threaten to use force against someone (known as assault, actually using said force is battery).

Where these intersect can sometimes seem blurry, but it boils down to: You have the positive right to free speech, and the negative right to be free from violence - even from your fellow citizens - as a consequence of that speech. But you do NOT have a negative right to free speech, your fellow citizens may de-platform you, shout you down, and socially shun you to their heart's content.

This may end up in the realm of political philosophy rather than politics per se, but you're basically talking about the difference between de jure (in the law) and de facto (in reality).

There's two things going on here that need to be acknowledged:

1. The government is not infringing the victim's freedom. In that sense they have the freedom of speech, de jure.

2. An act of violence is being perpetrated by their fellow citizens, from which (we assume, since you do not mention) the state is not shielding/rescuing them. This means the state has de facto ceded its responsibility to the arresting organization. This means either that organization is de facto legitimately acting on behalf of the government, which invalidates #1, above and your answer becomes "No, it does not." Or the state is impotent to enforce its own laws.

In the latter case, it's less a question of "does the country have free speech?" and more a question of "Does the country meaningfully exist in the first place?"

This overlaps with the difference between "Positive" and "Negative" freedoms. Positive freedoms are those which the government does not, itself, restrain. Free Speech, in the United States and elsewhere, is this type. The government may not interfere with your right to speak on matters of politics, etc.

A Negative Freedom means something which not only will the government not prevent you from, but it will not tolerate any others to interfere with it, either. Freedom to go about your business without fear of violence is this type. I speak about the United States, since that's what I know, but in the U.S. it's a crime to even threaten to use force against someone (known as assault, actually using said force is battery).

Where these intersect can sometimes seem blurry, but it boils down to: You have the positive right to free speech, and the negative right to be free from violence - even from your fellow citizens - as a consequence of that speech. But you do NOT have a negative right to free speech, your fellow citizens may de-platform you, shout you down, and socially shun you to their heart's content.

This may end up in the realm of political philosophy rather than politics per se, but you're basically talking about the difference between de jure (in the law) and de facto (in reality).

There's two things going on here that need to be acknowledged:

1. The government is not infringing the victim's freedom. In that sense they have the freedom of speech, de jure.

2. An act of violence is being perpetrated by their fellow citizens, from which (we assume, since you do not mention) the state is not shielding/rescuing them. This means the state has de facto ceded its responsibility to the arresting organization. This means either that organization is de facto legitimately acting on behalf of the government, which invalidates #1, above and your answer becomes "No, it does not." Or the state is impotent to enforce its own laws.

In the latter case, it's less a question of "does the country have free speech?" and more a question of "Does the country meaningfully exist in the first place?"

This may end up in the realm of political philosophy rather than politics per se, but you're basically talking about the difference between de jure (in the law) and de facto (in reality).

There's two things going on here that need to be acknowledged:

1. The government is not infringing the victim's freedom. In that sense they have the freedom of speech, de jure.

2. An act of violence is being perpetrated by their fellow citizens, from which (we assume, since you do not mention) the state is not shielding/rescuing them. This means the state has de facto ceded its responsibility to the arresting organization. This means either that organization is de facto legitimately acting on behalf of the government, which invalidates #1, above and your answer becomes "No, it does not." Or the state is impotent to enforce its own laws.

In the latter case, it's less a question of "does the country have free speech?" and more a question of "Does the country meaningfully exist in the first place?"

This overlaps with the difference between "Positive" and "Negative" freedoms. Positive freedoms are those which the government does not, itself, restrain. Free Speech, in the United States and elsewhere, is this type. The gov't may not interfere with your right to speak on matters of politics, etc.

A Negative Freedom means something which not only will the gov't not prevent you from, but it will not tolerate any others to interfere with it, either. Freedom to go about your business without fear of violence is this type. I speak about the United States, since that's what I know, but in the U.S. it's a crime to even threaten to use force against someone (known as assault, actually using said force is battery).

Where these intersect can sometimes seem blurry, but it boils down to: You have the positive right to free speech, and the negative right to be free from violence - even from your fellow citizens - as a consequence of that speech. But you do NOT have a negative right to free speech, your fellow citizens may de-platform you, shout you down, and socially shun you to their heart's content.