3 ms·
He actually handles that distinction early in the article as a quote: > [...] he noted that there exists not just a right to speak but a right to hear. “To sup
by Sebb767 5y ago
He actually handles that distinction early in the article as a quote:
> [...] he noted that there exists not just a right to speak but a right to hear. “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”
But this is of course a gray area. You don't have to listen to anything anyone has to say, but it's also possible to sideline something enough that it is effectively censored without being outright forbidden.
- josephcsible 5y agoI don't see how that quote addresses it. Wouldn't the relevant right be a "right not to hear", which he doesn't mention? > You don't have to listen to anything anyone has to say If you're a student, and it's in the state mandated curriculum, then you do. > it's also possible to sideline something enough that it is effectively censored without being outright forbidden. I 100% agree with this.
- Sebb767 5y ago> I don't see how that quote addresses it. Wouldn't the relevant right be a "right not to hear", which he doesn't mention? You're right, I misread your comment. He really does not differenciate this clearly, despite having examples for both cases.
- rayiner 5y agoThat’s completely inapposite to the point being made above. Choosing a curriculum is about curation—it has nothing at all to do with free speech, neither in the legal sense, nor in the broader “free speech values” sense.