5 ms·

"Don't vote for $candidate", "$candidate is bad" and "$other_candidate isn't as bad as you think" are all fundamental parts of free speech. How could they be ot

"Don't vote for $candidate", "$candidate is bad" and "$other_candidate isn't as bad as you think" are all fundamental parts of free speech. How could they be otherwise?

themagician 7y ago
No, they aren’t. That’s not what free speech is… at all. The right to free speech is the right to say something without the government using force or violence to silence you. That’s it. That’s all it is. That’s what it means.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  You seem to be confusing the first amendment with free speech as a concept, but that's depressingly common. Free speech is the natural right to communication; the first amendment is the US government's recognition of that right. And you're right, if Facebook is exercising their own speech rights, they don't have to relay the speech of others. But that doesn't mean that that refusal doesn't go against the concept and general principle in question.
  - themagician 7y ago
    I’m not confused at all. Nothing of what was said has anything to do with free speech. No one speech is being limited. And yeah, it does mean that their refusal doesn’t go against the “concept and general principle.” It has nothing to do with the concept. No one speech is being limited. You can say whatever you want. Facebook doesn’t come into your house or try to silence you. They aren’t suing people or trying to gag them. The right to free speech has nothing to do with this weird idea of “the right to be published”. The later isn’t a thing. Is my free speech being impinged upon when Facebook bans be because I want to post pictures of boobs? Of course not. It has nothing—zero—to do with free speech. That’s not what it means.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      It depends on if you view freedom of speech as a literal "you won't be beaten up for saying things in public" or as a more general thing like "people should be able to communicate with others, and restrictions on how they communicate should be viewpoint neutral". I tend to take the more expansive view. By the narrower view, a country could have freedom of speech if it allowed dissident thoughts to be expressed in person, but never electronically or in print - since those require the use of platforms owned by others. I don't think that's the case.
      - themagician 7y ago
        It doesn’t. Your expansive view is something different entirely from free speech. It’s just your opinion about how you want others to accommodate your speech—that you believe you have a right to have others broadcast your voice and your words because that’s, in your view, “fair”. That’s fine. maybe CNN should make time for everyone to get their two cents in, because that’s fair. But that has nothing to do with free speech. No one here is talking about “never electronically or in print”, because that’s not being restricted. You can print whatever you want and distribute whatever you want on your own website. Facebook isn’t taking down other people’s websites. It’s not a free speech issue. You can think whatever you want, but you are wrong. You should probably find a different term of philosophy, or just another way to describe the obligation you feel others have to be fair to you—because free speech is not it.
        Isinlor 7y ago
        Hmm.. Imgabe was arguing that it is Facebook right to publish what they want, and you said that this is not what freedom of speech is. Are you opposed to Facebook having right to publish ads saying “Don’t Vote for Hillary Clinton” and “A Vote for Jill Stein is Not a Wasted Vote”? Also, everyone. Please, remember that USA constitution is just a constitution. Facebook is a global company. Polish constitution [0] for example says: Article 14: The Republic of Poland shall ensure freedom of the press and other means of social communication. But it comes right after Article 13 banning nazism, fascism and communism: Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited. [0] https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm
- imgabe 7y ago
  That is what the First Amendment is about because it's part of a document establishing a government. That doesn't mean your freedom can't be impinged by private entities. If a private citizen locks you in their basement are you going to argue that your freedom is not being restricted because it isn't the government doing it?
  - themagician 7y ago
    The private entity in this case isn’t coming into YOUR house and limiting your speech. And being locked in a basement is kidnapping. That has nothing to do with free speech either. Their is this bizarro level misunderstanding of what free speech is. Publishers have no obligation to publish YOUR speech and you have to right to be published.

"Don't vote for $candidate", "$candidate is bad" and "$other_candidate isn't as bad as you think" are all fundamental parts of free speech. How could they be otherwise?

themagician 7y ago

No, they aren’t. That’s not what free speech is… at all. The right to free speech is the right to say something without the government using force or violence to silence you. That’s it. That’s all it is. That’s what it means.

DuskStar 7y ago
You seem to be confusing the first amendment with free speech as a concept, but that's depressingly common. Free speech is the natural right to communication; the first amendment is the US government's recognition of that right. And you're right, if Facebook is exercising their own speech rights, they don't have to relay the speech of others. But that doesn't mean that that refusal doesn't go against the concept and general principle in question.
- themagician 7y ago
  I’m not confused at all. Nothing of what was said has anything to do with free speech. No one speech is being limited. And yeah, it does mean that their refusal doesn’t go against the “concept and general principle.” It has nothing to do with the concept. No one speech is being limited. You can say whatever you want. Facebook doesn’t come into your house or try to silence you. They aren’t suing people or trying to gag them. The right to free speech has nothing to do with this weird idea of “the right to be published”. The later isn’t a thing. Is my free speech being impinged upon when Facebook bans be because I want to post pictures of boobs? Of course not. It has nothing—zero—to do with free speech. That’s not what it means.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    It depends on if you view freedom of speech as a literal "you won't be beaten up for saying things in public" or as a more general thing like "people should be able to communicate with others, and restrictions on how they communicate should be viewpoint neutral". I tend to take the more expansive view. By the narrower view, a country could have freedom of speech if it allowed dissident thoughts to be expressed in person, but never electronically or in print - since those require the use of platforms owned by others. I don't think that's the case.
    - themagician 7y ago
      It doesn’t. Your expansive view is something different entirely from free speech. It’s just your opinion about how you want others to accommodate your speech—that you believe you have a right to have others broadcast your voice and your words because that’s, in your view, “fair”. That’s fine. maybe CNN should make time for everyone to get their two cents in, because that’s fair. But that has nothing to do with free speech. No one here is talking about “never electronically or in print”, because that’s not being restricted. You can print whatever you want and distribute whatever you want on your own website. Facebook isn’t taking down other people’s websites. It’s not a free speech issue. You can think whatever you want, but you are wrong. You should probably find a different term of philosophy, or just another way to describe the obligation you feel others have to be fair to you—because free speech is not it.
      - Isinlor 7y ago
        Hmm.. Imgabe was arguing that it is Facebook right to publish what they want, and you said that this is not what freedom of speech is. Are you opposed to Facebook having right to publish ads saying “Don’t Vote for Hillary Clinton” and “A Vote for Jill Stein is Not a Wasted Vote”? Also, everyone. Please, remember that USA constitution is just a constitution. Facebook is a global company. Polish constitution [0] for example says: Article 14: The Republic of Poland shall ensure freedom of the press and other means of social communication. But it comes right after Article 13 banning nazism, fascism and communism: Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited. [0] https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm
imgabe 7y ago
That is what the First Amendment is about because it's part of a document establishing a government. That doesn't mean your freedom can't be impinged by private entities. If a private citizen locks you in their basement are you going to argue that your freedom is not being restricted because it isn't the government doing it?
- themagician 7y ago
  The private entity in this case isn’t coming into YOUR house and limiting your speech. And being locked in a basement is kidnapping. That has nothing to do with free speech either. Their is this bizarro level misunderstanding of what free speech is. Publishers have no obligation to publish YOUR speech and you have to right to be published.