3 ms·

> As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising t

> As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising that freedom at a practical level? The purpose of the first amendment is that the government can't throw you in jail for speech (freedom of speech, freedom of the press) and you can decide who you collaborate with (freedom of association). That's it. End of story. There's no thought or word put towards other people having to play nice with you about what you say.

quotemstr 6y ago
> The purpose of the first amendment is that the government can't throw you in jail for speech Why shouldn't the government be able to do that? What is the principle that motivated the restriction you described? The concept of free speech is a lot bigger than the government.
- RuggedPineapple 6y ago
  The motivation was that the government of the day did arrest critics and made certain speech illegal, depending on its mood. And no, it's not deeper then that. The constitution is a dry document pertaining solely to organizing a government. It's the entire purpose of the document.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    And what was wrong with arresting critics and making speech illegal? Thinking these things is bad is just some random whim the founders had with no additional thinking backing it up? One day, people are going to see private censorship from social media companies as the same kind of antiquated barbarism. "Of course," they will say, "a few unelected managers in tech companies shouldn't get to control the public conversation". The ability to speak without getting arrested in important because it's only by examining ideas that we separate the good ones from the bad ones. When social media companies make it impossible to have real conversations about certain ideas, they damage the ability of society to make good decisions.
    - RuggedPineapple 6y ago
      You're diving of some deep ends and speaking concretely as if you have the answer about what the future humans will be thinking. Pretty sure I'm being Poe'd here.

quotemstr 6y ago

> The purpose of the first amendment is that the government can't throw you in jail for speech Why shouldn't the government be able to do that? What is the principle that motivated the restriction you described? The concept of free speech is a lot bigger than the government.

RuggedPineapple 6y ago
The motivation was that the government of the day did arrest critics and made certain speech illegal, depending on its mood. And no, it's not deeper then that. The constitution is a dry document pertaining solely to organizing a government. It's the entire purpose of the document.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  And what was wrong with arresting critics and making speech illegal? Thinking these things is bad is just some random whim the founders had with no additional thinking backing it up? One day, people are going to see private censorship from social media companies as the same kind of antiquated barbarism. "Of course," they will say, "a few unelected managers in tech companies shouldn't get to control the public conversation". The ability to speak without getting arrested in important because it's only by examining ideas that we separate the good ones from the bad ones. When social media companies make it impossible to have real conversations about certain ideas, they damage the ability of society to make good decisions.
  - RuggedPineapple 6y ago
    You're diving of some deep ends and speaking concretely as if you have the answer about what the future humans will be thinking. Pretty sure I'm being Poe'd here.