3 ms·

Yes it is correct, in theory at least ;)

• boomboomsubban 6y ago
  There is no "theory," these things aren't based on science.
  • sdeframond 6y ago
    What I mean is that I don't know any community without practical limitations on free speech. The way I see it, we decided as a society that every individual was entitled to fundamental human rights. We also decided in practice that it would be good to put limits on some of these rights, especially when one interferes with another (try insulting a cop or denying the Shoah for example, or insulting the King in Thailand, etc etc). Different communities/countries have different views on what limitations to apply, even though they may all agree on these fundamental human rights. Regarding FB's policy in foreign countries, the case can made that they should respect those countries' choices, even though they are different from USA's choices. Otherwise it can arguably be perceived as US imperialism.
    • boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Everything you mention is separate from my point, which has nothing to do with free speech. You're view is that practical limitations on free speech are limits placed on a freedom granted you, while I'd say they are infringements allowed on my inherent right. Your notion that this is a small nitpick, or a theory that may be disproved is the wrong way of looking at it. It's two separate ways of looking at the same thing, neither more or less true than the other.
      • sdeframond 6y ago
        > they are infringements allowed on my inherent right Are you implying we should be allowed to say anything, without any exception?
        • boomboomsubban 6y ago
          I'm implying that we naturally have that right, but we have decided to place limits on it.