3 ms·

>I'm confused as to how Facebook even comes into this discussion. Facebook often comes up because they curate, suppress, or block some users' comments/photos.

by jasode 10y ago

>I'm confused as to how Facebook even comes into this discussion. Facebook often comes up because they curate, suppress, or block some users' comments/photos. Their discretion is framed as a "free speech" issue. Facebook is big so they've become a sort of common "placeholder" for a non-government private entity that limits users' expression. Also, Facebook was mentioned several times in the article that this thread is about. >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; The UDHR Article 19 is also about preventing government oppression in similar spirit to the USA First Amendment about "freedom of speech". (See my other comment about UDHR's origins and intended audience.) People are quoting it out of context and applying it as if it was some universal "free speech without any consequences from non-government actors" proclamation.

talmand 10y ago
As I said, I don't necessary agree with the Facebook thing. I can see why people complain about their behavior, which is fine. I was saying that I think the subject is irrelevant to the discussion. I suppose I interpret the title "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as meaning beyond government oppression. I believe in the idea of natural human rights and government exists because we allow it. Regardless, I interpret government inaction on non-state actors that actively suppress by illegal activities a person's rights to free expression (or speech, whichever makes people happy) as a form of government oppression. EDIT: thanks for the discussion, you've given me much to consider.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > Regardless, I interpret government inaction on non-state actors that actively suppress by illegal activities a person's rights to free expression (or speech, whichever makes people happy) as a form of government oppression. The above sentence is essentially lacking entirely of meaning. As your right of speech/expression can only be invoked when suppressed by a state entity, I assert that a non-state actor cannot possibly violate said right. Please give me one example of a non-state entity violating your right to not have your speech oppressed by the state?
  - talmand 10y ago
    Please explain in another way how it lacks entirely of meaning, because your current explanation is essentially lacking entirely of meaning. How does my right to free expression require a state entity? That implies that right is provided for by the state entity. That's not how it works. Here's an example of how a non-state entity can violate your right to free expression with the state's approval; you start to say something I don't like, I punch you in the face to shut you up. You try again and I punch you again. Now imagine a police officer standing right next to me watching me do it.

by jasode 10y ago

talmand 10y ago

As I said, I don't necessary agree with the Facebook thing. I can see why people complain about their behavior, which is fine. I was saying that I think the subject is irrelevant to the discussion. I suppose I interpret the title "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as meaning beyond government oppression. I believe in the idea of natural human rights and government exists because we allow it. Regardless, I interpret government inaction on non-state actors that actively suppress by illegal activities a person's rights to free expression (or speech, whichever makes people happy) as a form of government oppression. EDIT: thanks for the discussion, you've given me much to consider.

gnaritas 10y ago
> Regardless, I interpret government inaction on non-state actors that actively suppress by illegal activities a person's rights to free expression (or speech, whichever makes people happy) as a form of government oppression. The above sentence is essentially lacking entirely of meaning. As your right of speech/expression can only be invoked when suppressed by a state entity, I assert that a non-state actor cannot possibly violate said right. Please give me one example of a non-state entity violating your right to not have your speech oppressed by the state?
- talmand 10y ago
  Please explain in another way how it lacks entirely of meaning, because your current explanation is essentially lacking entirely of meaning. How does my right to free expression require a state entity? That implies that right is provided for by the state entity. That's not how it works. Here's an example of how a non-state entity can violate your right to free expression with the state's approval; you start to say something I don't like, I punch you in the face to shut you up. You try again and I punch you again. Now imagine a police officer standing right next to me watching me do it.