5 ms·

I am not saying the oppressive group is violating your First Amendment rights, I am saying they are actively suppressing you from exercising your rights. What's

by talmand 10y ago

I am not saying the oppressive group is violating your First Amendment rights, I am saying they are actively suppressing you from exercising your rights. What's the easiest way for the state to silence a group under free speech protections? Allow a non-state actor to do it instead. In my statement you quoted, I am putting the weight of my accusation on the state itself. I am shocked at how many people seem to think that if the government is not involved, then suppression of free expression is somehow tolerable. >> They aren't. No where is the state not enforcing laws against assault and violence. Recent events in Chicago and San Jose come to mind. There are several examples from some subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement that get out of hand and it is actively ignored. I can likely find you several examples of problems on college campuses where violence and property damage are not addressed. There are numerous examples of unions of the past taking rough measures to get their way. I'm sure I can come up with several examples from history if I need to take the time to research it. I would have to apologize in advance since I'm sure Communists, Fascists, and Nazis would come up. If we go outside the scope of speech then there would be countless examples of the government ignoring assault and violence that supports their needs.

gnaritas 10y ago
> I am saying they are actively suppressing you from exercising your rights. Which right is that? It's certainly not the first amendment as that only gives you the right not to be oppressed by the government. > I am shocked at how many people seem to think that if the government is not involved, then suppression of free expression is somehow tolerable. I'm shocked at how many people can't seem to understand what the first amendment actually guarantees. You don't have a right of free expression, you merely have the right not to have the government oppress your expression. Why, because giving you the right to express anything you want anywhere you want would violate other people's property rights. Facebook for example, is owned by Facebook; you have no right to force them to allow your content. > There are several examples from some subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement that get out of hand and it is actively ignored. I don't believe that. Assault is a local police problem, if the assaulted doesn't report the assault, then the government isn't ignoring it, it's unaware of it.
- talmand 10y ago
  I am making the argument that if a non-state actor is actively suppressing your speech with illegal activities and the state does nothing to prevent it, then the state is complicit in those actions. Take speech and the First Amendment out of it for a second; if a non-state actor oppresses you via illegal activities and the state does not step up to stop said illegal activities, then it is complicit in that oppression. But you seem to be ignoring that aspect of what I'm saying. It is the same argument used in the civil rights era when certain states turned a blind eye to racial injustice. The state wasn't always directly oppressing the minority community with their powers, but the Federal government had no issue labeling and punishing those states for oppressing those people. Partly because of the inaction of preventing illegal activities against the minority communities. I don't recall many stories of state officials lynching young black men under the power of the law, but I've heard many of white men doing it with impunity with the law refusing to respond. All for the purposes of oppressing that community. I grew up in the South, I saw such racial injustices throughout my life all the way to college. It's a major reason why I have this attitude about oppression of people. Please point me to where I have stated that free expression and free speech should allow the violation of property rights. I don't even understand how you can make that statement. I have not included the idea of third-parties being involved in anyone's speech. I have never claimed that one should have the right to post whatever you want on Facebook and that they can be forced to host it. I do not agree with that and feel that Facebook can do whatever they want with their property. I'm confused as to how Facebook even comes into this discussion. I'm not a big fan of pointing out fallacies, but I'm sure you made a couple with that one. I believe straw man is a popular one. As your thoughts on the right of free expression; depending on your feelings about the United Nations, they disagree with you: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Article 19 : Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Now, granted, the UN tends to ignore that themselves when it comes to several of their member states. But it's there, and it's a natural right due to any free human being. As for assaults and violence being ignored by police, any news media of your choice will likely lead you to stories on the subject. I fail to see how the government could be unaware of it. I see you skipped over the Chicago and San Jose examples. Also, the assaulted is not required to report to the police for action to be taken if the assault happened in the open.

by talmand 10y ago

gnaritas 10y ago

> I am saying they are actively suppressing you from exercising your rights. Which right is that? It's certainly not the first amendment as that only gives you the right not to be oppressed by the government. > I am shocked at how many people seem to think that if the government is not involved, then suppression of free expression is somehow tolerable. I'm shocked at how many people can't seem to understand what the first amendment actually guarantees. You don't have a right of free expression, you merely have the right not to have the government oppress your expression. Why, because giving you the right to express anything you want anywhere you want would violate other people's property rights. Facebook for example, is owned by Facebook; you have no right to force them to allow your content. > There are several examples from some subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement that get out of hand and it is actively ignored. I don't believe that. Assault is a local police problem, if the assaulted doesn't report the assault, then the government isn't ignoring it, it's unaware of it.

talmand 10y ago
I am making the argument that if a non-state actor is actively suppressing your speech with illegal activities and the state does nothing to prevent it, then the state is complicit in those actions. Take speech and the First Amendment out of it for a second; if a non-state actor oppresses you via illegal activities and the state does not step up to stop said illegal activities, then it is complicit in that oppression. But you seem to be ignoring that aspect of what I'm saying. It is the same argument used in the civil rights era when certain states turned a blind eye to racial injustice. The state wasn't always directly oppressing the minority community with their powers, but the Federal government had no issue labeling and punishing those states for oppressing those people. Partly because of the inaction of preventing illegal activities against the minority communities. I don't recall many stories of state officials lynching young black men under the power of the law, but I've heard many of white men doing it with impunity with the law refusing to respond. All for the purposes of oppressing that community. I grew up in the South, I saw such racial injustices throughout my life all the way to college. It's a major reason why I have this attitude about oppression of people. Please point me to where I have stated that free expression and free speech should allow the violation of property rights. I don't even understand how you can make that statement. I have not included the idea of third-parties being involved in anyone's speech. I have never claimed that one should have the right to post whatever you want on Facebook and that they can be forced to host it. I do not agree with that and feel that Facebook can do whatever they want with their property. I'm confused as to how Facebook even comes into this discussion. I'm not a big fan of pointing out fallacies, but I'm sure you made a couple with that one. I believe straw man is a popular one. As your thoughts on the right of free expression; depending on your feelings about the United Nations, they disagree with you: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Article 19 : Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Now, granted, the UN tends to ignore that themselves when it comes to several of their member states. But it's there, and it's a natural right due to any free human being. As for assaults and violence being ignored by police, any news media of your choice will likely lead you to stories on the subject. I fail to see how the government could be unaware of it. I see you skipped over the Chicago and San Jose examples. Also, the assaulted is not required to report to the police for action to be taken if the assault happened in the open.