4 ms·
> It is a curtailment of someone’s freedom of speech. The right to a venue and the right to speak are two entirely different things.
by MisterBastahrd 3y ago
> It is a curtailment of someone’s freedom of speech.
The right to a venue and the right to speak are two entirely different things.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> right to a venue and the right to speak are two entirely different things They’re both components of the freedom of speech. The origin of our modern tradition of free speech is tied to Parliament, where the right to speak and venue were inextricably intertwined [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689 No. 9
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoYou don't have the right to speak from my porch. You don't have the right to speak on my website. They are not components of the freedom of speech when talking about private property.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> don't have the right to speak from my porch I agree. > not components of the freedom of speech when talking about private property Of course it is. We don’t have an absolute right to freedom of speech. That doesn’t change the fact that we are curtailing one person’s freedom of speech in favour of your property rights.
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoYou never had the freedom. You can't curtail something that never existed.
- pdonis 3y agoThe Declaration of Right, No. 9, said that members of Parliament have freedom of speech in Parliament--i.e., in the meeting place of the public body they are members of. That is very different from claiming the right to speak in a private venue you don't own.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> very different from claiming the right to speak in a private venue you don't own Sure, I wasn’t taking it to say that. My point was just that venue has been at the heart of freedom of speech since its modern invention. The philosophy of freedom of speech applies to both public and private spheres. The First Amendment does not.