5 ms·

Her definition may be agreed upon, but she must not forget that she has not the right to make people uncomfortable. That's why it is called "freedom of speech"

by pif 4y ago

Her definition may be agreed upon, but she must not forget that she has not the right to make people uncomfortable. That's why it is called "freedom of speech" and not "freedom of protest". And she may be excused if she made the same error as many others before her, which consists in confusing the freedom to speak with the right to be listened to.

TylerE 4y ago
That's not how freedom of speech works.
krapp 4y ago
"making people uncomfortable" describes so many well-accepted uses of freedom of speech, from protest and civil disobedience to any form of speaking truth to power, even most art, media and cultural expression from certain religious points of view, that it only seems useful as a means of oppression. I would argue the opposite - that your comfort is a privilege, not a right.
infamouscow 4y ago
You're mistaken. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment And if that's not convincing enough, there's literally several hundred years of case rulings that reaffirm one's inalienable right to protest.
pif 4y ago
Dear fellow HNers, I think we are assigning different meanings to "make people uncomfortable". What makes me uncomfortable is people blocking streets or services in order to force me to hear them. Freedom of speech is talking and showing signs on the public square. If I don't like your sign, that's not making me uncomfortable.
natch 4y ago
You’re saying that someone doesn’t have the right to make someone uncomfortable, is making me very uncomfortable. Do you claim a special right to make me uncomfortable, while believing others should not have that right?

by pif 4y ago

TylerE 4y ago

That's not how freedom of speech works.

krapp 4y ago

"making people uncomfortable" describes so many well-accepted uses of freedom of speech, from protest and civil disobedience to any form of speaking truth to power, even most art, media and cultural expression from certain religious points of view, that it only seems useful as a means of oppression. I would argue the opposite - that your comfort is a privilege, not a right.

infamouscow 4y ago

You're mistaken. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment And if that's not convincing enough, there's literally several hundred years of case rulings that reaffirm one's inalienable right to protest.

pif 4y ago

Dear fellow HNers, I think we are assigning different meanings to "make people uncomfortable". What makes me uncomfortable is people blocking streets or services in order to force me to hear them. Freedom of speech is talking and showing signs on the public square. If I don't like your sign, that's not making me uncomfortable.

natch 4y ago

You’re saying that someone doesn’t have the right to make someone uncomfortable, is making me very uncomfortable. Do you claim a special right to make me uncomfortable, while believing others should not have that right?