6 ms·

> Replace "government" by "no one", and I would agree. (I'll accept one exception, though: judges, when punishing me for some bad deed.) No. In the U.S. which

> Replace "government" by "no one", and I would agree. (I'll accept one exception, though: judges, when punishing me for some bad deed.) No. In the U.S. which is all I care about, no one but the government can violate your right to free speech. You do not have a right to not be censored by anyone nor should you. > But it does mean I have a right to at least one broadcast medium. No it does not; it doesn't remotely mean any such thing. > By the way, freedom of speech only become real when the masses got internet access. That's nonsense. Anyone anywhere can walk out into any public area and speak to the crowd; freedom of speech does not in any way imply freedom to wide area broadcast mediums, it means only that you can't get in trouble from the authorities for holding unpopular views. If your views are popular, they will gain an audience from word of mouth alone. You never had a right to TV, or the paper, or any other medium.

loup-vaillant 9y ago
> it means only that you can't get in trouble from the authorities for holding unpopular views. That's freedom of thought. Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous. You can't be that stupid, and I'm not sure I mean that well. --- PS: I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech", it was defined at a time when it couldn't mean anything significant for the common people. Just understand that I'm talking about something broader, more powerful, enabled by the internet. Maybe you don't care about that broader freedom. But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > That's freedom of thought. Don't be absurd, thought can't be policed absent being made public via speech so it must necessarily involve speech to even be an issue. You're stammering to find a position because your own isn't logically coherent; that's what's happening here. > Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous. No, it's what's always been intended; no speech is guaranteed to have influence, what an absurd notion to even ponder. Such a thing cannot ever be guaranteed. > I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech" Well I don't care about this nonsense freedom you're making up because it imposes on other people's rights and can't be called a right. You do not have a right to other people's services, period. This broader freedom you're proclaiming is actually toxic abuse of private property, it's not freedom. > But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care. You don't have a right to have accounts on other people's systems. If every business you have an account with bans you, you're the problem, not them.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    Repeating myself here, but: Do you Libertarians realise that permission without ability means nothing?

loup-vaillant 9y ago

> it means only that you can't get in trouble from the authorities for holding unpopular views. That's freedom of thought. Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous. You can't be that stupid, and I'm not sure I mean that well. --- PS: I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech", it was defined at a time when it couldn't mean anything significant for the common people. Just understand that I'm talking about something broader, more powerful, enabled by the internet. Maybe you don't care about that broader freedom. But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care.

gnaritas 9y ago
> That's freedom of thought. Don't be absurd, thought can't be policed absent being made public via speech so it must necessarily involve speech to even be an issue. You're stammering to find a position because your own isn't logically coherent; that's what's happening here. > Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous. No, it's what's always been intended; no speech is guaranteed to have influence, what an absurd notion to even ponder. Such a thing cannot ever be guaranteed. > I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech" Well I don't care about this nonsense freedom you're making up because it imposes on other people's rights and can't be called a right. You do not have a right to other people's services, period. This broader freedom you're proclaiming is actually toxic abuse of private property, it's not freedom. > But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care. You don't have a right to have accounts on other people's systems. If every business you have an account with bans you, you're the problem, not them.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  Repeating myself here, but: Do you Libertarians realise that permission without ability means nothing?