4 ms·

The correct word for all of the recent changes is a result of the fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what constitutes acceptable use is censorship. In the

by jdoe2025 2y ago

The correct word for all of the recent changes is a result of the fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what constitutes acceptable use is censorship. In the United States of America, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution. That means you can use language or show content that I may find offensive. I may do the same for you. My choice is whether or not I wish to view it or permit my non-adult children to view it. This is not the vendor's prerogative; it is my responsibility as a parent. Mozilla's "terms and conditions" mean that fear has taken hold. Freedom is hard. Allowing a vendor to restrict use that infringes on a basic right is unacceptable. In the final analysis, their terms of use are probably unenforceable. Think about it. What are they going to do? Stop me and everyone else from sharing cute baby pictures? Ones in our grandparents' scrapbooks?

tempodox 2y ago
The Constitution only protects you from the government, it doesn't bind individuals or companies. The government cannot make laws that take away your freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean other people or companies are legally obligated to let you say whatever you want on their turf.
- halJordan 2y ago
  It does though. I get where you're coming from but thats a naive interpretation of a partial set of facts. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr does establish that free speech protection can be used against other private citizens
  - rascul 2y ago
    That court found that the California Constitution protected the free speech in that case. Not the US Constitution, which wouldn't protect the free speech in that case
- jdoe2025 2y ago
  Yes, but a browser is like a wirephoto. The recipient gets an exact copy of the original -- not retouched. Spelling errors, bad grammar, "warts and all." The browser is supposed to be transparent -- what you send is what I see. How I react is up to me. It is not up to the intervening service to add or remove content. This is what the internet was intended to be.
  - tempodox 2y ago
    Legal frameworks and other realities can make intentions hard or impossible to achieve.

tempodox 2y ago

The Constitution only protects you from the government, it doesn't bind individuals or companies. The government cannot make laws that take away your freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean other people or companies are legally obligated to let you say whatever you want on their turf.

halJordan 2y ago
It does though. I get where you're coming from but thats a naive interpretation of a partial set of facts. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr does establish that free speech protection can be used against other private citizens
- rascul 2y ago
  That court found that the California Constitution protected the free speech in that case. Not the US Constitution, which wouldn't protect the free speech in that case
jdoe2025 2y ago
Yes, but a browser is like a wirephoto. The recipient gets an exact copy of the original -- not retouched. Spelling errors, bad grammar, "warts and all." The browser is supposed to be transparent -- what you send is what I see. How I react is up to me. It is not up to the intervening service to add or remove content. This is what the internet was intended to be.
- tempodox 2y ago
  Legal frameworks and other realities can make intentions hard or impossible to achieve.