2 ms·
"your" above was hypothetical. I had no intention of referring to you in particular, just "you" as the rhetorical character opposite to "me", because I think in
by hannasanarion 7y ago
"your" above was hypothetical. I had no intention of referring to you in particular, just "you" as the rhetorical character opposite to "me", because I think inventing whole jew characters and giving them names Alice and Bob style is odious.
I contend that the Google definition you quoted is bad, or at least incomplete. Taking away a loaned megaphone is a type of censorship. It is also a type of speech: you are "saying" that you no longer want to amplify that person's ideas. It is necessarily both.
To be a free speech absolutist is to say that the New York Times must publish every nonsense article every 8 year old sends them, because editorial curation is a kind of censorship.
- leshow 7y ago> To be a free speech absolutist is to say that the New York Times must publish every nonsense article every 8 year old sends them, because editorial curation is a kind of censorship. This is a straw man argument and not what it means at all. I feel like we've found where we diverge though. I'm using the American definition of freedom of speech, it's true that other countries may have similar rights that are defined differently and with restrictions. In my view though, the definition includes the words "all" or "any" and precludes restrictions. You either have the right and are able to express 'any' ideas or you don't have it. Thanks for the discussion