4 ms·

The core point made here is wrong. > 6/ Freedom of speech might require such activities like: > A website > A pamphlet > An advertisement > Paying a graphi

The core point made here is wrong. > 6/ Freedom of speech might require such activities like: > A website > A pamphlet > An advertisement > Paying a graphic designer > Travelling to a different location All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now! Same for all the other various things mentioned in this thread. None of the things are requirements for the rights. You can worship and pray without a physical building, you can assemble without buying hot dogs etc etc. > All of which "cost money". This is the world that crypto folks want, but it's not the reality (at least yet). You can do plenty of things without money, including exercising said rights. The problem is that they can't conceive that because their worldview is centered around trying to monetize everything and every interaction - interactions that don't involve money aren't valid to them.

salawat 5y ago
Change freedom of speech to "freedom to realistically effect change", and you'll ultimately end up at the point everyone is dancing around, but no one is willing to say out loud. Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about. You can't buy a printing press without... Money. You can't buy a computer without... Money You can't get an internet connection without... Money. You can't just pass this off as cryptobros being cryptobros. Canada is basically saying, no one shall be serviced whose capital is getting allocated to "this". And that is dangerous, especially when done unilaterally by the executive government. Call me an overly stiff contrarian if you want, but a spade is a spade, whether you want to call it something else. That people are busy playing these semantic games should be reason for pause.
- malermeister 5y ago
  What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say. Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyone has a say, not just the Peter Thiels that can buy printing presses.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Properly, the government needs to fund the publication of speech by every citizen, so anyone can spend as much as Peter Thiel can
      - salawat 5y ago
        Square one. What the government giveth, it can take away. See Canada.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Info propagation isn't free. Even at the atomic unit, you and someone to listen to you, requires the organization of participants to scale beyond triviality. Realistically, within the societal framework we operate in, there isn't really feasible decoupling of funds from access to anplification. You're not safe relying on government subsidy, because, well, square one.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about. Nobody has freedom to be heard. "Freedom to be heard" equals "freedom to force others to listen (or at least to hear)". I deny that anyone legitimately has that freedom.
  - salawat 5y ago
    The Court, the Executive, and anyone sufficiently close to tweak their or, or with a big enough pocket book to have a lobbyist's ear beg to differ. Hence, the concern whenever it appears Governments are flexing it a bit brazenly.
engineer_22 5y ago
What good is "freedom of speech" if you can only talk to yourself?
- Teever 5y ago
  Freedom is speech isn't the freedom to make people listen.
  - tdhoot 5y ago
    Great. You have the freedom to speak, as long as it’s only in your head or into a corner where no one can ever hear you. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to make people listen, but the government can’t make that choice for people.
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    "make people listen" Like, coercion? As in, physically restrain someone so they must engage with my ideas?
    - Teever 5y ago
      No, we're talking about a situation in Ottawa where people are blaring their truck horns for hours at a time with a complete lack of regard for how the citizens of that city feel about it.
      - engineer_22 5y ago
        Oh, I thought we were talking about freedom of speech.
- malermeister 5y ago
  You clearly listened to me. I didn't spend any money on that. Case in point.
  - engineer_22 5y ago
bhelkey 5y ago
> All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now! What did you use to post this comment?
exolymph 5y ago
Uh, no, your speech would be moot without the people who pay for the website allowing you to use it. You don't contribute financially because you are the product (an audience of engineers for YC companies to influence and recruit). Make no mistake, though, money is a crucial element of your ability to broadcast your thoughts here.

salawat 5y ago

Change freedom of speech to "freedom to realistically effect change", and you'll ultimately end up at the point everyone is dancing around, but no one is willing to say out loud. Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about. You can't buy a printing press without... Money. You can't buy a computer without... Money You can't get an internet connection without... Money. You can't just pass this off as cryptobros being cryptobros. Canada is basically saying, no one shall be serviced whose capital is getting allocated to "this". And that is dangerous, especially when done unilaterally by the executive government. Call me an overly stiff contrarian if you want, but a spade is a spade, whether you want to call it something else. That people are busy playing these semantic games should be reason for pause.

malermeister 5y ago
What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say. Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyone has a say, not just the Peter Thiels that can buy printing presses.
- jevoten 5y ago
  But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Properly, the government needs to fund the publication of speech by every citizen, so anyone can spend as much as Peter Thiel can
    - salawat 5y ago
      Square one. What the government giveth, it can take away. See Canada.
- salawat 5y ago
  Info propagation isn't free. Even at the atomic unit, you and someone to listen to you, requires the organization of participants to scale beyond triviality. Realistically, within the societal framework we operate in, there isn't really feasible decoupling of funds from access to anplification. You're not safe relying on government subsidy, because, well, square one.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about. Nobody has freedom to be heard. "Freedom to be heard" equals "freedom to force others to listen (or at least to hear)". I deny that anyone legitimately has that freedom.
- salawat 5y ago
  The Court, the Executive, and anyone sufficiently close to tweak their or, or with a big enough pocket book to have a lobbyist's ear beg to differ. Hence, the concern whenever it appears Governments are flexing it a bit brazenly.

engineer_22 5y ago

What good is "freedom of speech" if you can only talk to yourself?

Teever 5y ago
Freedom is speech isn't the freedom to make people listen.
- tdhoot 5y ago
  Great. You have the freedom to speak, as long as it’s only in your head or into a corner where no one can ever hear you. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to make people listen, but the government can’t make that choice for people.
- engineer_22 5y ago
  "make people listen" Like, coercion? As in, physically restrain someone so they must engage with my ideas?
  - Teever 5y ago
    No, we're talking about a situation in Ottawa where people are blaring their truck horns for hours at a time with a complete lack of regard for how the citizens of that city feel about it.
    - engineer_22 5y ago
      Oh, I thought we were talking about freedom of speech.
malermeister 5y ago
You clearly listened to me. I didn't spend any money on that. Case in point.
- engineer_22 5y ago

bhelkey 5y ago

> All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now! What did you use to post this comment?

exolymph 5y ago

Uh, no, your speech would be moot without the people who pay for the website allowing you to use it. You don't contribute financially because you are the product (an audience of engineers for YC companies to influence and recruit). Make no mistake, though, money is a crucial element of your ability to broadcast your thoughts here.