2 ms·

You're talking about free speech in the narrow sense it is defined by the US first amendment to the constitution is. This is a pretty narrow definition, and peo

You're talking about free speech in the narrow sense it is defined by the US first amendment to the constitution is. This is a pretty narrow definition, and people also use it in broader senses of the word. The UN Declaration on human rights[^1] writes the following for instance (making no limitation to governments): >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. [1]: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

maeln 2y ago
If you want to go this way, then the article 4,5 and 10 of the 1789 Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen is much more interesting. But even by the U.N definition, the only part that could be of concern here is "receive and impart information and ideas through any media", but how exactly would that be put in place ? It is not like you can go to your local radio station and ask them to give you the mic since this is your right to impart information and ideas through any media.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Radio is the media. It just means you ought to be able to broadcast pirate radio without a permission slip from the government to use the airwaves in a constrained range of speech. Not that you ought to be able to take over someone else's pirate radio. Unless of course they say the F word, then you can rat them out and the FCC can send their skull crackers or whatever they do to stop it. Similarly with internet. You can make your own web server. You can't just hijack someone else's web server or send government goons to make them say what you want.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Radio is licensed because spectrum is limited. Newspaper isn't licensed because it's not inherently limited.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      I would argue the spectra of human vocal speech is more constrained than the far wider spectra of radio waves. What most places do is just limit sound beyond a certain level rather than requiring a license to play electronic sounds or talk. In the end most forms of communication are constrained -- you can only cut down so many trees or tree alternatives for newspaper, so I don't think this argument about licensing holds as presented.
wqaatwt 2y ago
On the other hand denying someone the right to express their opinion on your media platform etc. is also an expression of free speech.

maeln 2y ago

If you want to go this way, then the article 4,5 and 10 of the 1789 Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen is much more interesting. But even by the U.N definition, the only part that could be of concern here is "receive and impart information and ideas through any media", but how exactly would that be put in place ? It is not like you can go to your local radio station and ask them to give you the mic since this is your right to impart information and ideas through any media.

ty6853 2y ago
Radio is the media. It just means you ought to be able to broadcast pirate radio without a permission slip from the government to use the airwaves in a constrained range of speech. Not that you ought to be able to take over someone else's pirate radio. Unless of course they say the F word, then you can rat them out and the FCC can send their skull crackers or whatever they do to stop it. Similarly with internet. You can make your own web server. You can't just hijack someone else's web server or send government goons to make them say what you want.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Radio is licensed because spectrum is limited. Newspaper isn't licensed because it's not inherently limited.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    I would argue the spectra of human vocal speech is more constrained than the far wider spectra of radio waves. What most places do is just limit sound beyond a certain level rather than requiring a license to play electronic sounds or talk. In the end most forms of communication are constrained -- you can only cut down so many trees or tree alternatives for newspaper, so I don't think this argument about licensing holds as presented.

wqaatwt 2y ago

On the other hand denying someone the right to express their opinion on your media platform etc. is also an expression of free speech.