5 ms·
OP is saying they want to support a private business that voluntarily shares the government's mandate on free speech, even when they are not required to.
by mayank 9y ago
OP is saying they want to support a private business that voluntarily shares the government's mandate on free speech, even when they are not required to.
- minikites 9y agoI'm saying it's a somewhat nonsensical viewpoint, imagine substituting another governmental protection. Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens? "Free speech" applies to the rights granted/enforced/protected by government and businesses are operating on a different level than that.
- nailer 9y agoThe OP (and myself) consider freedom of speech is an ethical right that everyone should support. I live in the UK, we don't have a first amendment, but I still support freedom of speech. The viral video in Baidu this week is of a student activist in Hong Kong who supports freedom of speech, and her speech (independence for Hong Kong) is explicitly illegal. After we let people speak, and we dislike the speech, we can can then mock, disagree with, and poke fun at it, using our own freedom of speech.
- KekDemaga 9y ago>Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens? Given the option I'd pick them over a alternative.
- minikites 9y agoI suppose I'm still not conveying my point (or I'm misunderstanding the points of others). Either way (pro-quartering/speech or anti-quartering/speech) a business has no impact on those rights. A business can't decide to quarter soldiers in your house. A business can't "restrict" free speech (unless that business is a complete monopoly in that market, a separate issue) as a user can easily find another registrar or start their own registrar to meet their needs. Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.
- KekDemaga 9y ago>Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater. Legally we agree, but I can also choose to not support those businesses.
- bmelton 9y agoCountering your hypothetical with another hypothetical: How would you feel if Twitter decided to ban all people of color from being able to use the platform? Is that something you're totally cool with, because companies can't possibly affect your rights to free exercise of speech, or is it something you'd prefer they not do?
- mayank 9y ago"Free speech" as a concept extends far behind and beyond the First Amendment, which is the US statute you're alluding to. There's nothing nonsensical about a person believing in absolute free speech as a core value and supporting businesses that share that value. Just because you don't share a value doesn't make it "nonsensical".
- minikites 9y agoPlease share your definition of "absolute free speech", as the government has defined many exceptions and regularly limits the speech of citizens. Would your definition exclude those exceptions?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]