8 ms·
A technical point: that doesn't imply you have the right to type whatever you want on some website or app. If a journalist edits an interview, is that censorshi
by tgv 4y ago
A technical point: that doesn't imply you have the right to type whatever you want on some website or app. If a journalist edits an interview, is that censorship?
Anyway, absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. It's an insane idea.
- AdrianB1 4y agoIt kind of exists in the USA. Expressing you opinion, disregarding how brilliant or dumb it is, is a freedom they have.
- woodruffw 4y agoThe US does not have (and has never had) a doctrine of absolute free speech. Historically, we weren’t even particularly forward-thinking in our application of free expression (see: indecency laws, laws against political expression, &c).
- brigandish 4y ago> A technical point: that doesn't imply you have the right to type whatever you want on some website or app It's not a technical point, it's a different point. I gave a slightly expanded definition of what is freedom of speech. You are now questioning whether freedom of speech is or should be a right, and if so, under what circumstances. > If a journalist edits an interview, is that censorship? That depends on whether they edited it to censor or not, as editing is not a synonym for censoring, nor for interfering. As the Oxford English dictionary helpfully states: > interfere | ɪntəˈfɪə | > verb [no object] > 1 intervene in a situation without invitation or necessity > 2 (interfere with) prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly If they edit for a good reason who could claim they were interfering or censoring? > Anyway, absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. It's an insane idea. Should it exist in your own home?