4 ms·

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 refusa

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

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