4 ms·

The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on

The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on talking about this idealistic normative if you want, but in common parlance it's reasonable to refer to the legal concept by the colloquial term. You know how you can say whatever you want on the street, but I can make you leave my house for whatever reason I want? Same idea. Free speech is only a coherent concept in public spaces. Otherwise my right to private property would be impaired by your right to say whatever you want in my dojo. As for your last question...I mean, really? "What's the point?" Are you actually asking this in good faith? Go take a look at any country which doesn't have freedom of speech or freedom of the press. How about being able to say what I want without being disappeared in the middle of the night? If Twitter bans someone for hate speech you honestly believe that's comparable to something like Khashoggi's assassination? You're quoting Voltaire like the stakes for private and public censorship are the same but that's utterly ridiculous.

AlexB138 8y ago
> The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on talking about this idealistic normative if you want, but in common parlance it's reasonable to refer to the legal concept by the colloquial term. This is an opinion, and one many people disagree with. The idea of freedom of speech existed before the first amendment. They're not the same thing, it's just convenient for authoritarians to conflate them because it creates a narrower scope. It's intentional equivocation and a pretty flimsy argument tactic. > You know how you can say whatever you want on the street, but I can make you leave my house for whatever reason I want? Same idea. Free speech is only a coherent concept in public spaces. Otherwise my right to private property would be impaired by your right to say whatever you want in my dojo. Again, not the same thing, but what you're getting at is freedom of association. A company can choose whom they do business with, as an individual can choose whom they allow in their home. The interesting thing lately is that many people only believe in freedom of association when it means that they get to pick who is excluded, and very rarely believe in the actual principal. You can see this in the whole "gay wedding cake" situation that played out in the last couple of years. Much of the same political group that loves to trot out the idea that you can censor people out of existence on the internet was horrified when a private business chose not to create a specific message on their product. > You're quoting Voltaire like the stakes for private and public censorship are the same but that's utterly ridiculous. Not really, it's actually pretty dead on. John Stewart Mill wrote at length about censorship in On Liberty and specifically wrote about censorship via social pressure and how dangerous it was. It's not some imagined idea, it's just one inconvenient to a particular political group's goals right now.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Thanks for making these points so clearly. The person you are rightly critiquing seems similar to the careless but widespread view that says, "sure, go ahead and X, that's fine, it's your [legal] right, but I think blah blah" with this thing few ever catch which is: it's often totally NOT fine to do something that is nonetheless legal. You have the right to X, but I can still say STOP IT. And I could reasonably argue in various cases that X is anti-social or bad for any range of reasons. Please people do NOT just accept or do whatever as long as it's legal. That whole idea is craziness.

AlexB138 8y ago

> The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on talking about this idealistic normative if you want, but in common parlance it's reasonable to refer to the legal concept by the colloquial term. This is an opinion, and one many people disagree with. The idea of freedom of speech existed before the first amendment. They're not the same thing, it's just convenient for authoritarians to conflate them because it creates a narrower scope. It's intentional equivocation and a pretty flimsy argument tactic. > You know how you can say whatever you want on the street, but I can make you leave my house for whatever reason I want? Same idea. Free speech is only a coherent concept in public spaces. Otherwise my right to private property would be impaired by your right to say whatever you want in my dojo. Again, not the same thing, but what you're getting at is freedom of association. A company can choose whom they do business with, as an individual can choose whom they allow in their home. The interesting thing lately is that many people only believe in freedom of association when it means that they get to pick who is excluded, and very rarely believe in the actual principal. You can see this in the whole "gay wedding cake" situation that played out in the last couple of years. Much of the same political group that loves to trot out the idea that you can censor people out of existence on the internet was horrified when a private business chose not to create a specific message on their product. > You're quoting Voltaire like the stakes for private and public censorship are the same but that's utterly ridiculous. Not really, it's actually pretty dead on. John Stewart Mill wrote at length about censorship in On Liberty and specifically wrote about censorship via social pressure and how dangerous it was. It's not some imagined idea, it's just one inconvenient to a particular political group's goals right now.

quadrangle 8y ago
Thanks for making these points so clearly. The person you are rightly critiquing seems similar to the careless but widespread view that says, "sure, go ahead and X, that's fine, it's your [legal] right, but I think blah blah" with this thing few ever catch which is: it's often totally NOT fine to do something that is nonetheless legal. You have the right to X, but I can still say STOP IT. And I could reasonably argue in various cases that X is anti-social or bad for any range of reasons. Please people do NOT just accept or do whatever as long as it's legal. That whole idea is craziness.