3 ms·

At the risk of coming off like I'm unloading on you personally (I'm not, but your post serves a point): I am sick of reading this. Everybody already knows this

At the risk of coming off like I'm unloading on you personally (I'm not, but your post serves a point): I am sick of reading this. Everybody already knows this, at least the "everybody" that posts on HN and I'd wager a good chunk of the rest of the country. Anyone saying "free speech" is not necessarily referring to the first amendment of the constitution. Can we please, please stop parroting this "well ackchually" correction around as if it contributes in any meaningful way to any discussion? It isn't an interesting observation anymore, if it ever was, and it certainly won't be interesting the next thousand times its made. Implying conflation of the first amendment with the principle it protects is at best a thought-terminating cliché, at worst intentional bad faith. At least on tech boards. YMMV on Facebook with your relatives. In response to the edit above, which was a stealth edit instead of a reply for some reason: Yes, you have repeated the exact same song and dance I complain about here. You have added nothing to the discussion that we haven't already heard hundreds of times here and elsewhere. The discussion is about "should", not "is". We all know what the law "is".

shripadk 6y ago
And it is even more infuriating when it is the first amendment of the United States of America that is quoted as a definition for free speech. What free speech means in America is not the same as what free speech means in a European, African or Asian country. Every country defines free speech in their own ways. To always quote the first amendment as if the law applies to everyone in the World is seriously problematic. USA is not the World. The World is not USA. It is high time we get out of this mentality.
onion2k 6y ago
Claiming that the person making an argument has conflated the first amendment with the principle it protects is at best a thought-terminating cliché, at best intentional bad faith. Had the author of this Ask HN framed his question more honestly, and said something like "Should private companies be able to refuse to publish what I want to say?" they'd get very few responses saying no. But that doesn't serve their narrative, so they framed the question as one about the right to speak at all, rather than the right to be published by a specific private business. If anyone is posting in bad faith its the author of this Ask HN.

shripadk 6y ago

And it is even more infuriating when it is the first amendment of the United States of America that is quoted as a definition for free speech. What free speech means in America is not the same as what free speech means in a European, African or Asian country. Every country defines free speech in their own ways. To always quote the first amendment as if the law applies to everyone in the World is seriously problematic. USA is not the World. The World is not USA. It is high time we get out of this mentality.

onion2k 6y ago

Claiming that the person making an argument has conflated the first amendment with the principle it protects is at best a thought-terminating cliché, at best intentional bad faith. Had the author of this Ask HN framed his question more honestly, and said something like "Should private companies be able to refuse to publish what I want to say?" they'd get very few responses saying no. But that doesn't serve their narrative, so they framed the question as one about the right to speak at all, rather than the right to be published by a specific private business. If anyone is posting in bad faith its the author of this Ask HN.