4 ms·

I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. (Your 2nd parag

I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. (Your 2nd paragraph seems against, but your 3rd paragraph seems for.) Regardless, I'm not arguing either, I'm stating facts backed by case law as outlined in the linked Wikipedia article to support the thesis that the phrase "free speech" is used to mean many different things, often to deliberately confound discussion on the topic. If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; imagined prohibition of private restrictions; ability to override rights of protected classes) I suspect we'd have fewer, and more productive, discussions. Unfortunately such precision of language is hard to come by in this brave new world of emotion-driven discource and deliberately confounded communication.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 9y ago
> I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. That might be because I thought it was obvious that the second amendment doesn't prohibit private entities from restricting speech. In fact, it is much more likely to prevent Congress from passing any law to limit the abilities of private entities to limit speech (since those editorial decisions count as speech.) > If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; My point is that there is no "flavor" of free speech only "flavors" of censorship. The importance of freedom of speech and its value to society does not change based on which "flavors" of censorship are being used. Ultimately, our misunderstandings might be based on you trying to refute an argument which does not occur in the article and of which you provide no concrete examples.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  But there are flavors of free speech. I, for one, don't believe that violent threats fall under free speech. I don't believe that makes me against free speech.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    Violent threats are already illegal and I haven't seen anyone here arguing to make them legal. What is your point?
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal, and that sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats.
      - shkkmo 9y ago
        > I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal So why don't you go argue with them on a platform where they exist? I haven't see anyone making that claim here or in the article. Again, what is you point? > sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats Generally we leave enforcement of the laws to law enforcement officials. Twitter should give out the information needed to prosecute that illegal speech and send those people to jail, not be in the business of determining what speech is illegal in a way where all of the protections of our legal system are lost.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

shkkmo 9y ago

> I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. That might be because I thought it was obvious that the second amendment doesn't prohibit private entities from restricting speech. In fact, it is much more likely to prevent Congress from passing any law to limit the abilities of private entities to limit speech (since those editorial decisions count as speech.) > If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; My point is that there is no "flavor" of free speech only "flavors" of censorship. The importance of freedom of speech and its value to society does not change based on which "flavors" of censorship are being used. Ultimately, our misunderstandings might be based on you trying to refute an argument which does not occur in the article and of which you provide no concrete examples.

s73ver_ 9y ago
But there are flavors of free speech. I, for one, don't believe that violent threats fall under free speech. I don't believe that makes me against free speech.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  Violent threats are already illegal and I haven't seen anyone here arguing to make them legal. What is your point?
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal, and that sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      > I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal So why don't you go argue with them on a platform where they exist? I haven't see anyone making that claim here or in the article. Again, what is you point? > sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats Generally we leave enforcement of the laws to law enforcement officials. Twitter should give out the information needed to prosecute that illegal speech and send those people to jail, not be in the business of determining what speech is illegal in a way where all of the protections of our legal system are lost.