4 ms·
Thats my point... you have a special brand of "free speech". That has caveats on the free part. If you don't like the bradley manning example, then just move
by Volpe 15y ago
Thats my point... you have a special brand of "free speech". That has caveats on the free part.
If you don't like the bradley manning example, then just move further up the chain to Wikileaks. The point is still valid.
It isn't Free Speech, is just 'mostly' free unless you impinge on a more powerful interest... oh wait, that isn't free.
- Karunamon 15y agoIt sounds like you're pointing to a definition of "free" that doesn't include exceptions for incitement, classified information, etc. It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world.
- Volpe 15y ago> It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world. Reference? Why is it unworkable?
- Karunamon 15y agoYou somehow expect a world without any secrets of any kind to function?
- Volpe 15y agoYou somehow expect a world where governments lie to it's own people to function? (Not only that, you seem to accept that governments lying is fine, but exposing those lies is a violation of free speech...???)