4 ms·
They didn't read the same quote I did. My interpretation, in more modern terms: I don't want to publish $BadThunk on my site. I might well help those wishing
by h2odragon 3y ago
They didn't read the same quote I did.
My interpretation, in more modern terms:
I don't want to publish $BadThunk on my site. I might well help those wishing to speak $BadThunk to set up a site of their own, where they can say whatever the hell they please and not bother me.
Then he regrets the editorial choices of other publications in typical pointed circumlocutions that make more sense in the context of the day: he was razzing other papers for doubting the commitment of the French to the American Revolution, specific.
- hn_acker 3y agoThe impetus of the article is that the party who filed the amicus brief included the Ben Franklin quote in an attempt to justify compelled hosting of user speech. > I might well help those wishing to speak $BadThunk to set up a site of their own, where they can say whatever the hell they please and not bother me. And you can give that help if you wish to. But the First Amendment doesn't give people who speak $BadThink the right to make you help them set up a site. The First Amendment does give you the right to refuse. So the article might have misinterpreted Ben Franklin's personal opinion about whether moderation is good in general, but correctly interpreted Ben Franklin's opinion about whether moderation is a right.