4 ms·

Well, the public forum doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) holds that the point of free speech is c

Well, the public forum doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) holds that the point of free speech is communication among citizens. I don't have a cite for the direct quote I wanted (it's lost in my browser history), but the idea was that free speech is not satisfied by just making available a space in which one is not going to be heard by anyone. This doesn't imply a positive right to a particular audience, of course.

bena 5y ago
You said, specifically, that "US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts", included the expectation to be heard. That it implied an audience be made available to you. You need to be able to cite a source, ideally a case or specific law, on such a claim because no one else I know holds to that definition. A link to a Wikipedia article about a different concept does not satisfy, because it does not cite a legal definition of free speech by US courts.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  As I just said, I don't have a source. I was surprised as well. (Should have bookmarked it...)
  - bena 5y ago
    Then it's quite possible that you've completely misread what the alleged source actually said. You've levied a pretty heavy claim with nothing but your word as evidence for it.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      I don't think it's a heavy claim? Consider the notion of having free speech standing alone in a room. This is obviously pointless. Why would it be a stretch for a court to make the observation that the point of free speech is that people hear you? I remember thinking "oh yeah, that makes sense, they wouldn't view free speech in isolation but as a tool of the democratic process."
      - bena 5y ago
        It is a heavy claim, because it implies you can coerce others. It implies you can grab someone passing by your hypothetical room and force them to be your audience. No. That's never been the case. Your room is open to all and people who want to listen aren't prevented from going into it. However, I'm also not obligated to host you in a room I own. The government guarantees my freedom of association as well. You want to opine, do it in your own room, or do it in places owned by the public at large. Your recollection of what you were supposedly thinking doesn't mean you didn't misread what was written either. If you want me to even consider your claim, you are going to need a source on it. Because, like I said, it's a heavy one.

bena 5y ago

You said, specifically, that "US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts", included the expectation to be heard. That it implied an audience be made available to you. You need to be able to cite a source, ideally a case or specific law, on such a claim because no one else I know holds to that definition. A link to a Wikipedia article about a different concept does not satisfy, because it does not cite a legal definition of free speech by US courts.

FeepingCreature 5y ago
As I just said, I don't have a source. I was surprised as well. (Should have bookmarked it...)
- bena 5y ago
  Then it's quite possible that you've completely misread what the alleged source actually said. You've levied a pretty heavy claim with nothing but your word as evidence for it.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    I don't think it's a heavy claim? Consider the notion of having free speech standing alone in a room. This is obviously pointless. Why would it be a stretch for a court to make the observation that the point of free speech is that people hear you? I remember thinking "oh yeah, that makes sense, they wouldn't view free speech in isolation but as a tool of the democratic process."
    - bena 5y ago
      It is a heavy claim, because it implies you can coerce others. It implies you can grab someone passing by your hypothetical room and force them to be your audience. No. That's never been the case. Your room is open to all and people who want to listen aren't prevented from going into it. However, I'm also not obligated to host you in a room I own. The government guarantees my freedom of association as well. You want to opine, do it in your own room, or do it in places owned by the public at large. Your recollection of what you were supposedly thinking doesn't mean you didn't misread what was written either. If you want me to even consider your claim, you are going to need a source on it. Because, like I said, it's a heavy one.