3 ms·

>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate th

>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

anm89 7y ago
Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement! People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  > People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece. I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good starting point.
  - anm89 7y ago
    And how many people had freedom of speech in 1750. Ha and try offending the emperor of China to his face in that era (or now) and let me how long you keep your head for.
    - unityByFreedom 7y ago
      Freedom of speech is not permanent. It has to continually be demanded, or it disappears. There will always be people trying to tell you what to do or say. If you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.
- MrStonedOne 7y ago
  They never mentioned "legally" either, so why are you bringing that up?
tenebrisalietum 7y ago
Ok, so fine, free speech predates the Constitution. Consider my reference to the Constitution an example, rather than the definition. My argument is still that you are not performing speech in the sense meant by "Free Speech" when you utilize telecommunication services. Free speech and compelling third parties with telecommunications infrastructure to carry any of your speech unaltered are separate concepts. I am particularly interested in how you can, if possible, link the two without using egalitarian arguments if possible. Most people defend free speech irrespective of the economic status of the speaker so I'm hoping you or someone can come up with something that is also similarly non-dependent on economic status.
- MrStonedOne 7y ago
  it's inaccessible for somebody who is poor in montana to travel to new york city and speak on a soap box in central park. Should that be an argument against new york having free speech because its not accessible to some people? Your last sentence confuses me because it sounds like you are arguing that if it's possible for somebody to be too poor to use a platform then that platform should never have free speech, and i'm not sure how those two concepts link. Anywho. The ideological and moral principles of free speech exist in tandem with other ideological and moral principles. I run a forum for a game server to an open source game (I also run the game and the game server, but that's besides the point). This forum has sections with various names and the section names all spell out what type of discussions that section is intended to hold If somebody wants to post about how badly they hate how I run the site or the game server, and post it on the role playing and table top rpg board, it will get removed, as its off topic, and nobody in the community would care. If they instead post that in any one of 5 sections that it would be on topic for, and i remove it, as I technically have to right to do, I will have trampled on that posters free speech, and everybody has the right to tell me to fuck off for doing so. What you are failing to understand is that the principle of free speech is akin to the principle of not being a dick, its enforced by society in the same fuzzy matter where conflicting interests are concerned

anm89 7y ago

Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement! People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

unityByFreedom 7y ago
> People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece. I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good starting point.
- anm89 7y ago
  And how many people had freedom of speech in 1750. Ha and try offending the emperor of China to his face in that era (or now) and let me how long you keep your head for.
  - unityByFreedom 7y ago
    Freedom of speech is not permanent. It has to continually be demanded, or it disappears. There will always be people trying to tell you what to do or say. If you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.
MrStonedOne 7y ago
They never mentioned "legally" either, so why are you bringing that up?

tenebrisalietum 7y ago

Ok, so fine, free speech predates the Constitution. Consider my reference to the Constitution an example, rather than the definition. My argument is still that you are not performing speech in the sense meant by "Free Speech" when you utilize telecommunication services. Free speech and compelling third parties with telecommunications infrastructure to carry any of your speech unaltered are separate concepts. I am particularly interested in how you can, if possible, link the two without using egalitarian arguments if possible. Most people defend free speech irrespective of the economic status of the speaker so I'm hoping you or someone can come up with something that is also similarly non-dependent on economic status.

MrStonedOne 7y ago
it's inaccessible for somebody who is poor in montana to travel to new york city and speak on a soap box in central park. Should that be an argument against new york having free speech because its not accessible to some people? Your last sentence confuses me because it sounds like you are arguing that if it's possible for somebody to be too poor to use a platform then that platform should never have free speech, and i'm not sure how those two concepts link. Anywho. The ideological and moral principles of free speech exist in tandem with other ideological and moral principles. I run a forum for a game server to an open source game (I also run the game and the game server, but that's besides the point). This forum has sections with various names and the section names all spell out what type of discussions that section is intended to hold If somebody wants to post about how badly they hate how I run the site or the game server, and post it on the role playing and table top rpg board, it will get removed, as its off topic, and nobody in the community would care. If they instead post that in any one of 5 sections that it would be on topic for, and i remove it, as I technically have to right to do, I will have trampled on that posters free speech, and everybody has the right to tell me to fuck off for doing so. What you are failing to understand is that the principle of free speech is akin to the principle of not being a dick, its enforced by society in the same fuzzy matter where conflicting interests are concerned