3 ms·

But no one here has defended a «right to any specific platform». I wrote that the two ideas are conflated «in some interpretation of the two expressions» (not a

by mdp2021 2y ago

But no one here has defended a «right to any specific platform». I wrote that the two ideas are conflated «in some interpretation of the two expressions» (not as any absolute right to say anything anywhere), and that what is to be defended is the «reasonable right to expression» (especially with relevance to the «Right to intellectual activity», above all of this). > It would be a very strange world if, e.g., I could lawfully demand and be obligated to receive Nothing to do with an University deciding to host an event and its students hindering its happening because they decided they dislike the invited.

TimorousBestie 2y ago
> But no one here has defended a «right to any specific platform». Earlier: > “...student's actions against free speech - blocking access to allegedly controversial conferences and seminars, for example.”
- mdp2021 2y ago
  ...And that's not relevant to a «right to any specific platform». It's not "Joe has a right to express his ideas on XYZ news in that slot on that day": it's "where is the right of a political entity to hinder an event, planned by prestigious entities, in which freedom of speech is exercised".