4 ms·

One persons "suppression of speech" is another persons right to not publish and spread that persons bullshit. This is why people always bring up that the "Free

by Rapzid 7y ago

One persons "suppression of speech" is another persons right to not publish and spread that persons bullshit. This is why people always bring up that the "Free speech" is a concept that applies to governments(never-mind the historical origins in ancient Athens which was largely around protecting political discourse and dissent from prosecution..). Like many restrictions placed on the government it falls apart and becomes contradictory when applied to the individual.

a_tractor 7y ago
The principles which make up the Bill of Rights are derived from natural law, which itself derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from space, time, and matter. Just as Newton didn't create the law of gravity, no man or government created the right to freedom of expression. That there are certain rights which exist as prerequisites necessary for the formation of a peaceful society of civilized humans was not created, it was discovered. Aristotle and others argued that each kind of animal has a mental nature that is appropriate to its physical nature. All animals know or can discover what they need to do in order to lead the life that they are physically fitted to live. Thus humans are naturally capable of knowing how to live together and do business with each other without killing each other. In England the theory of natural law led to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of right, and the English Enlightenment. It was the basis for the US revolution and the US bill of rights. The fact that society runs smoothly when natural law is applied has been proven over and over again. Over and over and over again throughout the ages tyrants and social engineers have tested these natural laws, the end result of such disrespect has always led and always will lead to one thing and one thing only: violence. That people no longer understand this, and that corporations and powerful pseudo-rulers do not respect this, is nothing new, but only shows how much we are regressing as a society in terms of our basic respect for our fellow man. Deflecting from that by pretending that only the government is responsible for respecting this truth is... well... ignorant and recklessly defiant not only of the lessons of history, but of human nature itself. What the Constitution formally acknowledges and attempts to respect, which should apply to everybody operating within the social contract, is that any ruler, or anyone who places themselves in the position of a ruler, who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed, and his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the common enemies of all mankind. What I am saying has provided the moral and legal basis for many great revolutions, and many governments.
ivnubinas 7y ago
So Facebook should be regulated as a publisher?
- liara_k 7y ago
  If this is intended to make a §230 argument, consider that its reason d'etre is based on the complete impracticality of pre-clearing user generated content. The practical considerations differ by orders of magnitude when we're talking about paid advertisements.

by Rapzid 7y ago

a_tractor 7y ago

The principles which make up the Bill of Rights are derived from natural law, which itself derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from space, time, and matter. Just as Newton didn't create the law of gravity, no man or government created the right to freedom of expression. That there are certain rights which exist as prerequisites necessary for the formation of a peaceful society of civilized humans was not created, it was discovered. Aristotle and others argued that each kind of animal has a mental nature that is appropriate to its physical nature. All animals know or can discover what they need to do in order to lead the life that they are physically fitted to live. Thus humans are naturally capable of knowing how to live together and do business with each other without killing each other. In England the theory of natural law led to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of right, and the English Enlightenment. It was the basis for the US revolution and the US bill of rights. The fact that society runs smoothly when natural law is applied has been proven over and over again. Over and over and over again throughout the ages tyrants and social engineers have tested these natural laws, the end result of such disrespect has always led and always will lead to one thing and one thing only: violence. That people no longer understand this, and that corporations and powerful pseudo-rulers do not respect this, is nothing new, but only shows how much we are regressing as a society in terms of our basic respect for our fellow man. Deflecting from that by pretending that only the government is responsible for respecting this truth is... well... ignorant and recklessly defiant not only of the lessons of history, but of human nature itself. What the Constitution formally acknowledges and attempts to respect, which should apply to everybody operating within the social contract, is that any ruler, or anyone who places themselves in the position of a ruler, who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed, and his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the common enemies of all mankind. What I am saying has provided the moral and legal basis for many great revolutions, and many governments.

ivnubinas 7y ago

So Facebook should be regulated as a publisher?

liara_k 7y ago
If this is intended to make a §230 argument, consider that its reason d'etre is based on the complete impracticality of pre-clearing user generated content. The practical considerations differ by orders of magnitude when we're talking about paid advertisements.