5 ms·

What aggravates me the most is seeing people argue that "first amendment applies only to government, corporations are free to do as they wish". Yes, but didn't

What aggravates me the most is seeing people argue that "first amendment applies only to government, corporations are free to do as they wish". Yes, but didn't we used to be in favor of free speech as an abstract dignity of humans?

shadowgovt 5y ago
Depends on who "we" is. I used to think of it that way, but nowadays I think of it more as a good principle to underpin effective government. For starters, lots of governments have a different comprehension of it than mine does and they do well.
krapp 5y ago
The right of free speech has always implied a right to choose what speech not to support, tolerate or publish. Compelled speech is not free speech. That's why the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to abridge speech, because the right to abridge speech is held by the people as an aspect of free speech, as well as the freedom of association and private property. It's the same principle as "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins," and it used to be commonly understood as a necessary, fundamental building block of civil society. Unfortunately we seem to have somehow spontaneously forgotten this and now, if anyone doesn't simply accept a punch to the the face they're infringing on your rights.
pkilgore 5y ago
> didn't we used to be in favor of free speech as an abstract dignity of humans? You're redefining free speech. Free speech is freedom to speak without fear of consequences from your government. What you're asking for is freedom to speak without consequences from your fellow citizens and your standing in the social community. That's never been how humans have worked, ever. And I doubt even you would want to live in a world where you could not ignore, walk away from, remove from your property, mock, or shout down speech you disagreed with.

5 ms·

What aggravates me the most is seeing people argue that "first amendment applies only to government, corporations are free to do as they wish". Yes, but didn't

by prionassembly 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago
Depends on who "we" is. I used to think of it that way, but nowadays I think of it more as a good principle to underpin effective government. For starters, lots of governments have a different comprehension of it than mine does and they do well.
krapp 5y ago
The right of free speech has always implied a right to choose what speech not to support, tolerate or publish. Compelled speech is not free speech. That's why the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to abridge speech, because the right to abridge speech is held by the people as an aspect of free speech, as well as the freedom of association and private property. It's the same principle as "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins," and it used to be commonly understood as a necessary, fundamental building block of civil society. Unfortunately we seem to have somehow spontaneously forgotten this and now, if anyone doesn't simply accept a punch to the the face they're infringing on your rights.
pkilgore 5y ago
> didn't we used to be in favor of free speech as an abstract dignity of humans? You're redefining free speech. Free speech is freedom to speak without fear of consequences from your government. What you're asking for is freedom to speak without consequences from your fellow citizens and your standing in the social community. That's never been how humans have worked, ever. And I doubt even you would want to live in a world where you could not ignore, walk away from, remove from your property, mock, or shout down speech you disagreed with.