3 ms·

> Calls to action are speech. Yes, technically, but come on now. You're being disingenuous. Let's forgo the semantic bullshit which is a pretty shoddy attempt

> Calls to action are speech. Yes, technically, but come on now. You're being disingenuous. Let's forgo the semantic bullshit which is a pretty shoddy attempt at making a point to begin with. Instead of saying 'freedom of speech', since you want to be so technical, we can say 'freedom to express any opinion'. The USA has significantly more freedom for people to 'express any opinion' than other first world countries. > I don't know how much simpler I can make it. You're not making anything 'simple', you're making a disingenuous point to try and support an even more, forgive me, asinine point that isn't really correct except in a meaningless semantic way. You're ignoring the spirit of what is being discussed and acting like you've refuted a claim; you haven't even come close. Why don't you actually try and address the claim made instead of playing silly semantic games in lieu of an argument?

immibis 3y ago
But people aren't talking about "freedom to express any opinion". They're talking about "free speech".
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Yes, and as generally used and meant, it means "freedom to express any opinion". No one reasonable disagrees that you shouldn't be able to yell fire in a crowded theater. There have never been people advocating for that when they argue for free speech. Pointing out there is a restriction on causing riots or disturbances to argue that there is not truly free speech is rather meaningless. It's a 'victory' only in the most technical sense, and not one worth recognizing considering how irrelevant it is to the actual discussion, which relates to "freedom to express any opinion". Just to be clear, the claim is that the US has significantly more freedom to "express any opinion" than any other first world country does. In this context, "freedom to express any opinion" is generally referred to as "freedom of speech".

immibis 3y ago

But people aren't talking about "freedom to express any opinion". They're talking about "free speech".

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Yes, and as generally used and meant, it means "freedom to express any opinion". No one reasonable disagrees that you shouldn't be able to yell fire in a crowded theater. There have never been people advocating for that when they argue for free speech. Pointing out there is a restriction on causing riots or disturbances to argue that there is not truly free speech is rather meaningless. It's a 'victory' only in the most technical sense, and not one worth recognizing considering how irrelevant it is to the actual discussion, which relates to "freedom to express any opinion". Just to be clear, the claim is that the US has significantly more freedom to "express any opinion" than any other first world country does. In this context, "freedom to express any opinion" is generally referred to as "freedom of speech".