4 ms·
> In almost every case online, the discussion is about the global ideal of freedom of speech, not about US law. In the recent events in the US, a lot of people
by alexeldeib 6y ago
> In almost every case online, the discussion is about the global ideal of freedom of speech, not about US law.
In the recent events in the US, a lot of people have (mistakenly, IMO) cited the first amendment for protection of speech many others don't like. But those protections afford no help against private actors. In that context GP makes a lot of sense bringing up this point.
Example: a US senator cites the first amendment when discussing free speech after a publisher refuses to run his book: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-hawley-publisher-cancels-book-in-wake-of-capitol-attack https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-hawley-...
- kova12 6y agoFreedom of speech specifically applies to offensive speech. You don't need any legal protections to talk about flowers and butterflies
- alexeldeib 6y agoBringing it back to the context of the original reply: it applies to protection from the government, not protection from private individuals when you make speech which offends those individuals. That's why I linked the book case. Hawley cites the first amendment, but he's in a contract with a private entity to publish the book. Barring contract disputes, there is no first amendment case that the publisher must distribute his book.