2 ms·
Sure, but no one is claiming private companies can't hurt you. That's not what this is about. Note the specific term used: the government can kill you. It is th
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Sure, but no one is claiming private companies can't hurt you. That's not what this is about. Note the specific term used: the government can kill you. It is the sole arbiter of what's legal in its domain. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect you from being shamed or embarassed for what you say. It exists to keep you from being jailed or murdered to censor the voice of the people.
So no, it's not "utterly nonsensical." Everything you're bringing up is completely orthogonal to the political theory of freedom of speech.
- jsonne 8y agoI mean that is exactly what the thread was about. Legalism, and the 1st amendment is very uninteresting as an argument about morals to me. The principle of the freedom of speech is an interesting moral argument which these platforms (publishers if we're being intellectually honest) are often guilty of abusing. Slavery was once "legal" yet when people talk about freedom the entire concept isn't hinged on the 13th amendment.