5 ms·

No we don't. The meaning of free speech is clearly defined in the United States by the First Amendment. QED.

by IOT_Apprentice 7y ago

malvosenior 7y ago
I explicitly stated I'm talking about the spirit of free speech.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  The spirit of free speech is this. You have a right to say whatever the hell you want in public. That doesn't mean I have to let you do it in my home, my business, my private internet website. I am not required to give a platform to speech I disagree with. It also doesn't shield you from responsibility or the inevitable reaction from choosing free speech.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I disagree. The spirit of free speech is that everyone should want to at least have access to all thoughts and speech. You don't have to like them, you don't have to read them but you should have access to them. Otherwise you're letting someone else filter what you can and cannot see.
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
      You can disagree all you want. It doesn't make you less wrong. You literally are limited by the nature of the universe and your physical body so reality is a filter. Time limits how much you can consume should you be able to bypass the physical limitations of your body. Your belief is fundamentally incongruous with the intent of free speech. If I am forced to host your platform/speech/lewd gestures/etc. you're taking away my rights of free speech to not host your platform. No one is taking away access. What they are doing is kicking the drunk ass jerk out of the bar for harassing other people because they were warned to stop being such a dick and they continued on anyways. They can say whatever they want from someplace them own and no one is preventing access to them. They want a bar full of jerks, they can go right ahead and have no rules of decorum. You're confusing unlimited speech with free speech. There has never been a right to access to all speech. Private conversations happen all the time and no one has a right to listen to those. So again, just because someone owns a billboard doesn't mean they are required to post your message. The courts have been pretty solid on this and it's why the baker won his case against the couple. You cannot force me to advocate for you if I don't believe in it.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        Once again I'll repeat that I'm talking about the spirit of free speech not the law. I'm encouraging everyone to take up the attitude that having information filtered by someone else is inherently bad. Users should be demanding unfiltered access to all of the content on the platform. Just like on Reddit how some subs add a mod log so you can see what they're filtering. This is the mentality of intellectual inquisitive people and needs to be promoted as it's currently under attack.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Let me try to bridge the gap between you two. If I'm running a platform, I have the choice to make it a moderated platform or an unmoderated one. If I make it unmoderated, you can have your "free access to everything". [Edit: At the price of it becoming a cesspool that most people don't want to wallow in.] But if I make it moderated, you don't have the right to make me carry anything on it that I don't want to carry. You don't like it? Go run your own platform, and carry what you like. And between all these different platforms - some unmoderated, and the moderated ones having a bunch of different standards of what they will and will not allow - people get to freely choose which ones they want to spend time on and contribute content to. All that can work without the government forcing anybody to do anything.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        KirinDave 7y ago
        > This is the mentality of intellectual inquisitive people and needs to be promoted as it's currently under attack. It's weird you say this because it really seems more like the mentality of people who want a state sponsored megaphone to shout, "Debate me you cowards!" into.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      This is an opinion about how people should feel about your speech, not an opinion about what rights people should have with regards to speech. You're welcome to it, but it seems tangential. I certainly am not interested in you telling me how to feel.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    By your definition, the spirit of free speech is perfectly fine in a company town where anyone criticizing their employer loses their livelihood.
    - olliej 7y ago
      Um, accept the gop has stated that’s their definition - an employer can require employees to act according to the employers religion. Also in plenty of small towns that is already the case - people in coal country get ruined if they complain about coal, or the mining companies. Which is considered legal. But let’s put up a very simple example: if I rent out a billboard on a building I own, should I be required to post advertisements from a political candidate I disagree with? Your interpretation of free speech says yes I should have no choice, likewise if I get a pro-hitler or pro Stalin, pro genocide, or pornography, I have no choice I just display it. Actually here’s a very American example: during elections people stick the little plastic political boards in their front yard, in doing so they’ve declared that their front yard is a space for political ads - should Someone then be allowed to put opposition ads there as well? This is your definition of free speech: if you publish any speech, you are required to publish all
      - deogeo 7y ago
        Please don't pretend a problem doesn't exist, because you disagree with one of the possible solutions to it (or an extreme caricature of such a solution that you made up on the spot). I didn't give a definition of free speech (neither its spirit nor the law establishing it). I merely gave an example illustrating how farcical it is to ignore all factors except the government, when evaluating the degree of freedom of speech that people enjoy.
        KirinDave 7y ago
        It's precisely because speech is decriminalized that were ignoring it as a matter of law, though.
krapp 7y ago
>The meaning of free speech is clearly defined in the United States by the First Amendment. QED. No, it isn't. Here is the text of the First Amendment, verbatim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Freedom of speech (literally "the freedom of speech") is never defined in the First Amendment, merely referred to in the context of a list of freedoms that Congress is prohibited from abridging, the definitions for which are assumed to already be understood by the reader.
olliej 7y ago
The first amendment specifically applies to the government bodies, and laws passed by them. It very deliberately excludes private parties - otherwise and random wacko could force the nyt or fox to publish whatever they wanted.

No we don't. The meaning of free speech is clearly defined in the United States by the First Amendment. QED.

malvosenior 7y ago

I explicitly stated I'm talking about the spirit of free speech.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
The spirit of free speech is this. You have a right to say whatever the hell you want in public. That doesn't mean I have to let you do it in my home, my business, my private internet website. I am not required to give a platform to speech I disagree with. It also doesn't shield you from responsibility or the inevitable reaction from choosing free speech.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I disagree. The spirit of free speech is that everyone should want to at least have access to all thoughts and speech. You don't have to like them, you don't have to read them but you should have access to them. Otherwise you're letting someone else filter what you can and cannot see.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    You can disagree all you want. It doesn't make you less wrong. You literally are limited by the nature of the universe and your physical body so reality is a filter. Time limits how much you can consume should you be able to bypass the physical limitations of your body. Your belief is fundamentally incongruous with the intent of free speech. If I am forced to host your platform/speech/lewd gestures/etc. you're taking away my rights of free speech to not host your platform. No one is taking away access. What they are doing is kicking the drunk ass jerk out of the bar for harassing other people because they were warned to stop being such a dick and they continued on anyways. They can say whatever they want from someplace them own and no one is preventing access to them. They want a bar full of jerks, they can go right ahead and have no rules of decorum. You're confusing unlimited speech with free speech. There has never been a right to access to all speech. Private conversations happen all the time and no one has a right to listen to those. So again, just because someone owns a billboard doesn't mean they are required to post your message. The courts have been pretty solid on this and it's why the baker won his case against the couple. You cannot force me to advocate for you if I don't believe in it.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Once again I'll repeat that I'm talking about the spirit of free speech not the law. I'm encouraging everyone to take up the attitude that having information filtered by someone else is inherently bad. Users should be demanding unfiltered access to all of the content on the platform. Just like on Reddit how some subs add a mod log so you can see what they're filtering. This is the mentality of intellectual inquisitive people and needs to be promoted as it's currently under attack.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Let me try to bridge the gap between you two. If I'm running a platform, I have the choice to make it a moderated platform or an unmoderated one. If I make it unmoderated, you can have your "free access to everything". [Edit: At the price of it becoming a cesspool that most people don't want to wallow in.] But if I make it moderated, you don't have the right to make me carry anything on it that I don't want to carry. You don't like it? Go run your own platform, and carry what you like. And between all these different platforms - some unmoderated, and the moderated ones having a bunch of different standards of what they will and will not allow - people get to freely choose which ones they want to spend time on and contribute content to. All that can work without the government forcing anybody to do anything.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        > This is the mentality of intellectual inquisitive people and needs to be promoted as it's currently under attack. It's weird you say this because it really seems more like the mentality of people who want a state sponsored megaphone to shout, "Debate me you cowards!" into.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    This is an opinion about how people should feel about your speech, not an opinion about what rights people should have with regards to speech. You're welcome to it, but it seems tangential. I certainly am not interested in you telling me how to feel.
- deogeo 7y ago
  By your definition, the spirit of free speech is perfectly fine in a company town where anyone criticizing their employer loses their livelihood.
  - olliej 7y ago
    Um, accept the gop has stated that’s their definition - an employer can require employees to act according to the employers religion. Also in plenty of small towns that is already the case - people in coal country get ruined if they complain about coal, or the mining companies. Which is considered legal. But let’s put up a very simple example: if I rent out a billboard on a building I own, should I be required to post advertisements from a political candidate I disagree with? Your interpretation of free speech says yes I should have no choice, likewise if I get a pro-hitler or pro Stalin, pro genocide, or pornography, I have no choice I just display it. Actually here’s a very American example: during elections people stick the little plastic political boards in their front yard, in doing so they’ve declared that their front yard is a space for political ads - should Someone then be allowed to put opposition ads there as well? This is your definition of free speech: if you publish any speech, you are required to publish all
    - deogeo 7y ago
      Please don't pretend a problem doesn't exist, because you disagree with one of the possible solutions to it (or an extreme caricature of such a solution that you made up on the spot). I didn't give a definition of free speech (neither its spirit nor the law establishing it). I merely gave an example illustrating how farcical it is to ignore all factors except the government, when evaluating the degree of freedom of speech that people enjoy.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        It's precisely because speech is decriminalized that were ignoring it as a matter of law, though.

krapp 7y ago

>The meaning of free speech is clearly defined in the United States by the First Amendment. QED. No, it isn't. Here is the text of the First Amendment, verbatim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Freedom of speech (literally "the freedom of speech") is never defined in the First Amendment, merely referred to in the context of a list of freedoms that Congress is prohibited from abridging, the definitions for which are assumed to already be understood by the reader.

olliej 7y ago

The first amendment specifically applies to the government bodies, and laws passed by them. It very deliberately excludes private parties - otherwise and random wacko could force the nyt or fox to publish whatever they wanted.