4 ms·

Belief in free speech is a fundamental prerequisite to free thought. We express all critical thinking in words - if that speech cannot be shared, then neither

by dublin 4y ago

Belief in free speech is a fundamental prerequisite to free thought. We express all critical thinking in words - if that speech cannot be shared, then neither can the ideas. There is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech, which is something the Founders recognized quite well, given their own situation with the English king as well as that of their recent ancestors fleeing their European homelands for a new, tough land half a world away - it was worth the travail/travel (same root word) for that freedom.

Maursault 4y ago
The Free Speech of the 1st Amendment, not only only applies to government entities, it is not absolute. Obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, threats and solicitations to commit crimes are not protected speech. They are examples of restricted speech, and according to you, there "is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech." Death to tyrants restricting you from producing child pornography, right? The Founders' intention of the Bill of Rights is only and only can be a restriction on what the government can and can't do in regards to an individual's freedoms. If the Founders were here today, they would insist that the 1st Amendment does not extend to limit the freedom od business or private citizens. I can censor you and you can censor me, and it is is our right and our freedom to do so. The government, and only the government, can not. This is intentional. Don't like Twitter censuring you? Start your own company that promotes your own political ideals. You are free to do so.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  You will find countless quotes such as the following among the founding fathers: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." - Thomas Jefferson To imagine they would see the current scenario where the government and a handful of corporations are working in cahoots to suppress expression + drive self censorship on a scale unlike anything in our history, and go "Yip, working as intended." is just disingenuous.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > is just disingenuous I strongly disagree. And Jefferson was not talking about ochlocracy, which is itself tyrannical. You think the Founders were unaware of commerce and business during their era? Why did they then intentionally limit government with the Bill of Rights, and not also have it restrict business and private citizens? Because doing so would create less freedom and less security. Look at the text of the Amendment: Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech So you see, we don't need to extend the First Amendment to restrict corporations or private citizens, because they do not and can not make laws. Only Congress can make laws. What we have is a non-sequitor. The First Amendment, logically and rationally, can not possibly apply to companies like Twitter. So if you do want to limit corporations with Free Speech, you can so so, that is what the Tenth Amendment is for. Please stop assaulting the Bill of Rights with not very well thought out and fundamentally self-entitled and capricious whims. Only 2/3rd majority of Congress or of the state legislatures can change the Constitution. It is set as a high standard intentionally. Try to understand why. Because it's not about you and what you want, it is about the interests of everyone altogether and not everyone shares your shallow opinions. The Founders certainly didn't.
- nec4b 4y ago
  >> Death to tyrants restricting you from producing child pornography, right? Did you seriously compared free speech to child pornography? Why not add murder and stealing in the mix as well, that will make your point stand out even more.

by dublin 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago

The Free Speech of the 1st Amendment, not only only applies to government entities, it is not absolute. Obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, threats and solicitations to commit crimes are not protected speech. They are examples of restricted speech, and according to you, there "is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech." Death to tyrants restricting you from producing child pornography, right? The Founders' intention of the Bill of Rights is only and only can be a restriction on what the government can and can't do in regards to an individual's freedoms. If the Founders were here today, they would insist that the 1st Amendment does not extend to limit the freedom od business or private citizens. I can censor you and you can censor me, and it is is our right and our freedom to do so. The government, and only the government, can not. This is intentional. Don't like Twitter censuring you? Start your own company that promotes your own political ideals. You are free to do so.

somenameforme 4y ago
You will find countless quotes such as the following among the founding fathers: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." - Thomas Jefferson To imagine they would see the current scenario where the government and a handful of corporations are working in cahoots to suppress expression + drive self censorship on a scale unlike anything in our history, and go "Yip, working as intended." is just disingenuous.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > is just disingenuous I strongly disagree. And Jefferson was not talking about ochlocracy, which is itself tyrannical. You think the Founders were unaware of commerce and business during their era? Why did they then intentionally limit government with the Bill of Rights, and not also have it restrict business and private citizens? Because doing so would create less freedom and less security. Look at the text of the Amendment: Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech So you see, we don't need to extend the First Amendment to restrict corporations or private citizens, because they do not and can not make laws. Only Congress can make laws. What we have is a non-sequitor. The First Amendment, logically and rationally, can not possibly apply to companies like Twitter. So if you do want to limit corporations with Free Speech, you can so so, that is what the Tenth Amendment is for. Please stop assaulting the Bill of Rights with not very well thought out and fundamentally self-entitled and capricious whims. Only 2/3rd majority of Congress or of the state legislatures can change the Constitution. It is set as a high standard intentionally. Try to understand why. Because it's not about you and what you want, it is about the interests of everyone altogether and not everyone shares your shallow opinions. The Founders certainly didn't.
nec4b 4y ago
>> Death to tyrants restricting you from producing child pornography, right? Did you seriously compared free speech to child pornography? Why not add murder and stealing in the mix as well, that will make your point stand out even more.