4 ms·

> By your same reasoning, the government could claim ownership of the atmosphere and be justified in restricting literal speech. I don't follow. > Fundamental

> By your same reasoning, the government could claim ownership of the atmosphere and be justified in restricting literal speech. I don't follow. > Fundamentally, we're currently building a society where the commons is privately controlled. We're building that society by choice; if we don't fully agree with the ramifications of it, we should build it differently. And by the way, all society building is about compromise. It seems most people are happy with the compromise that the commons should be privately controlled (at least online) if it gives them the convenience they are looking for. The vocal opposition appears to be a minority. > Rejecting the analysis of freedom of speech for this society implies one does not actually value the concept. I haven't rejected any analysis. I'm stating my opinion on the matter. You are free to disagree, but I would appreciate if you did it honestly (and not by putting words into my mouth).

mindslight 10y ago
If the government owns the atmosphere, then you need a license to use it. That license comes with a requirement that you will not use it to engage in bad speech. You're still free to write down whatever you'd like. > I haven't rejected any analysis You have repeatedly rejected applying the concept of "freedom of speech" to analyze the community of twitter users. Deprecating this widely-known general quality obscures the phenomenon as if it were something novel. > We're building that society by choice; if we don't fully agree with the ramifications of it, we should build it differently. Yes. Being able to express thoughts like "centralized platforms destroy freedom of speech" facilitates deciding and doing so. > It seems most people are happy with the compromise that the commons should be privately controlled (at least online) if it gives them the convenience they are looking for Actually most people just assume there should be someone telling them what to do, and then make up for their disempowerment by mobbing together against some minority. The entire point of rights is to protect the minority.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  Sorry, but the government does not own the atmosphere, and the point of rights is not to protect minorities.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Yes obviously, it is called a hypothetical ("if"). The resulting contradiction is intended to illustrate a problem with one of its premises. If rights are not for protecting minorities, then they have no point - the majority is safe by construction. There's no way that speech celebrating July 4th would ever be curtailed in contemporary society.
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      As a hypothetical I agree with it. If we (the people) agree that the government owns the air we breathe and should control it's motion (including sound waves) then I would have no moral problem with them restricting literal speech. But as a hypothetical it doesn't really do much for this discussion. Rights may help protect minorities, but I would not consider that to be their point. That's like saying rights were created to solve that particular problem. Rights exist, and agreeing on what they are protects whomever is having them infringed upon, minority or not. For example, if two strong people wanted to kill ten weak people, rights protect the majority. If the ten wanted to kill the two, rights protect the minority. It may be the case that the rights of minorities are infringed upon more often, but in general rights are blind to numbers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mindslight 10y ago

If the government owns the atmosphere, then you need a license to use it. That license comes with a requirement that you will not use it to engage in bad speech. You're still free to write down whatever you'd like. > I haven't rejected any analysis You have repeatedly rejected applying the concept of "freedom of speech" to analyze the community of twitter users. Deprecating this widely-known general quality obscures the phenomenon as if it were something novel. > We're building that society by choice; if we don't fully agree with the ramifications of it, we should build it differently. Yes. Being able to express thoughts like "centralized platforms destroy freedom of speech" facilitates deciding and doing so. > It seems most people are happy with the compromise that the commons should be privately controlled (at least online) if it gives them the convenience they are looking for Actually most people just assume there should be someone telling them what to do, and then make up for their disempowerment by mobbing together against some minority. The entire point of rights is to protect the minority.

jjnoakes 10y ago
Sorry, but the government does not own the atmosphere, and the point of rights is not to protect minorities.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Yes obviously, it is called a hypothetical ("if"). The resulting contradiction is intended to illustrate a problem with one of its premises. If rights are not for protecting minorities, then they have no point - the majority is safe by construction. There's no way that speech celebrating July 4th would ever be curtailed in contemporary society.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    As a hypothetical I agree with it. If we (the people) agree that the government owns the air we breathe and should control it's motion (including sound waves) then I would have no moral problem with them restricting literal speech. But as a hypothetical it doesn't really do much for this discussion. Rights may help protect minorities, but I would not consider that to be their point. That's like saying rights were created to solve that particular problem. Rights exist, and agreeing on what they are protects whomever is having them infringed upon, minority or not. For example, if two strong people wanted to kill ten weak people, rights protect the majority. If the ten wanted to kill the two, rights protect the minority. It may be the case that the rights of minorities are infringed upon more often, but in general rights are blind to numbers.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]