2 ms·
> At what point will it be universally understood that "free speech" is only legally binding when a person is speaking with the government That is not what "fr
by Jensson 2y ago
> At what point will it be universally understood that "free speech" is only legally binding when a person is speaking with the government
That is not what "free speech" means, that is what current US free speech laws does. Free speech itself include all censorship from big organizations, regardless if it is a government or not, the important part is if you have large organized censoring then its against free speech.
So it is totally valid to say you want to protect free speech by limiting the ability for large corporations to censor people.
- ChicagoDave 2y agoFree speech is a legal term. We all know there is a push to invent some new definition that says jerks must be heard, but if you look at the migration out of Twitter, you can see that a lot of people aren't interested in that new definition. If you come to Bluesky, your actions dictate your following.