4 ms·
While some may agree with your defense of the heckler's veto [0], constraining the discussion of freedom of expression to government-conducted censorship is dis
by snerbles 8y ago
While some may agree with your defense of the heckler's veto [0], constraining the discussion of freedom of expression to government-conducted censorship is disingenuous.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto
- smt88 8y agoAgain, that only applies to public spaces. Not all protesters are at public universities. There is no (and never has been) an unequivocal right to free speech in a private space. Also, constraining the discussion of freedom of expression to government-conducted censorship is not disingenuous. It's the only context in which freedom of expression is guaranteed in the US.
- snerbles 8y agoYou are conflating implementation with philosophy. While the First Amendment is one such implementation of the notion of free speech, it is not the philosophy of freedom of expression itself.
- smt88 8y agoI'm not conflating those things. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm only talking about implementation. Philosophical discussion of free speech is a much broader scope and not, to my understanding, what anyone else was talking about in this thread. If they were talking about philosophy, then it wasn't clear to me and this became an argument of semantics.