2 ms·

I'm not ignoring it, you're claiming a right you don't have. You do not have a right of free speech/expression outside of not having the government trample on

I'm not ignoring it, you're claiming a right you don't have. You do not have a right of free speech/expression outside of not having the government trample on it. Non state actors don't have to break the law to censor you, they have the legal right to do it on their own property. If someone is oppressing you illegally call the cops or sue them, the state already protects you against illegal activities. You're complaining about individual acts of corruption and calling them state support, this is incorrect. The UN Article 19 does not disagree with me, it's also about non government intervention. Local police corruption is not the same thing as government support. Those incidents are examples of local corruption, not government sanctioned oppression, and they are being addressed and that will take years to play out to see how the state responds.

talmand 10y ago
Explain to me how punching me in the face while standing in a public space to make me shut up is a legal right on private property? With police standing nearby to witness the whole thing and yet do nothing. You keep going back to private property to deflect from what I'm saying. I've already agreed to your premise around private property, why don't you consider my premise which is different? I shall read up again on the UN's declarations. I admit it's been quite a few years for me. Since the local police are an arm of local government, police corruption is the same as government support. When the next level of police hierarchy at the state government level also decides not to respond, then that's government support at the state level. As I said elsewhere, look into the complaints of the civil right's era and how state government's ignored crimes on the black communities.
- gwright 10y ago
  Assault is a violation of your right to not be physically attacked. The reason for the attack is generally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was something you said, jealousy induced hatred, road rage, gang initiation, and so on. An officer of the law refusing to enforce the law is incompetence, abuse of authority, or corruption. Executive branch incompetence, even criminal incompetence, is something distinctly different than legislative proscriptions that institutionalize through the power of law unwarranted interference in freedom of expression. There is no need to label all these problems as instances of infringement on freedom of speech in order to argue that they are inappropriate. They are inappropriate all on their own. Mislabeling them just confuses the discussion.

talmand 10y ago

Explain to me how punching me in the face while standing in a public space to make me shut up is a legal right on private property? With police standing nearby to witness the whole thing and yet do nothing. You keep going back to private property to deflect from what I'm saying. I've already agreed to your premise around private property, why don't you consider my premise which is different? I shall read up again on the UN's declarations. I admit it's been quite a few years for me. Since the local police are an arm of local government, police corruption is the same as government support. When the next level of police hierarchy at the state government level also decides not to respond, then that's government support at the state level. As I said elsewhere, look into the complaints of the civil right's era and how state government's ignored crimes on the black communities.

gwright 10y ago
Assault is a violation of your right to not be physically attacked. The reason for the attack is generally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was something you said, jealousy induced hatred, road rage, gang initiation, and so on. An officer of the law refusing to enforce the law is incompetence, abuse of authority, or corruption. Executive branch incompetence, even criminal incompetence, is something distinctly different than legislative proscriptions that institutionalize through the power of law unwarranted interference in freedom of expression. There is no need to label all these problems as instances of infringement on freedom of speech in order to argue that they are inappropriate. They are inappropriate all on their own. Mislabeling them just confuses the discussion.