4 ms·
It's codified into law that way for a reason, any further guarantee about freedom of speech beyond non-government interference would be a violation of someone e
by gnaritas 10y ago
It's codified into law that way for a reason, any further guarantee about freedom of speech beyond non-government interference would be a violation of someone else's property rights. Your rights end where others begin and telling a company/person what they can and can't do with their own properties tramples on their rights. My website/land/newspaper/company etc are my property and I can censor you while on it if I wish because you have no right of free expression on my property.
- mindslight 10y agoYes, I don't disagree with what you've just said. But as I've been saying there is more to freedom of speech than what is possible to guarantee legally. For instance, there is definitely a lack of freedom of speech on twitter/facebook/etc. This does not automatically imply that they should be forced to carry disagreeable content or that their service should be nationalized. In this case, my statement is meant to encourage people to seek out Freer software.
- gnaritas 10y ago> For instance, there is definitely a lack of freedom of speech on twitter/facebook/etc. I do not agree, Facebook is displaying the speech they choose to display and this is their exercise of their freedom of speech on their website. Same for twitter. Users have no right/reason to expect they can say anything on these private properties. > In this case, my statement is meant to encourage people to seek out Freer software. We agree on that.
- mindslight 10y agoSo we're really just arguing over whether the term is a singular and specific, or can be a more general concept. To me, including nonidentical behavior that has similar effects on society is the better choice. Furthermore, the actual text of the first amendment does not define freedom of speech, but explicitly references it as an external concept.