4 ms·

I believe the most interesting aspect of your comment is the conflation of individual, corporate, and commercial speech as "free speech". Why, exactly, do you

I believe the most interesting aspect of your comment is the conflation of individual, corporate, and commercial speech as "free speech". Why, exactly, do you think that your proposed "right not to see things you don't want to see" trumps the right of others to advertise on their own property / speak their own minds? Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights -- that is, the artists' free speech rights are constrained by the property and free speech rights of the advertisers and owners. Does this not imply that there could be constraints on the exercise of free speech insofar as it infringes upon the rights of others? Could pervasive, unavoidable public advertising, explicitly designed to instill desire through emotional manipulation, somehow infringe on my rights as an individual to not listen?

space_cowboy 17y ago
>"Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights" That's typically how it works. Paul can ban people from his site. The New York Times can prevent you from publishing an article on its pages. Neither infringes on your free speech rights, as understood by law and Western intellectual tradition.
- ankhmoop 17y ago
  That's typically how it works. Paul can ban people from his site. The New York Times can prevent you from publishing an article on its pages. Neither infringes on your free speech rights, as understood by law and Western intellectual tradition. Yes. However, I can also choose to not read Hacker News, or The New York Times.
philh 17y ago
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that corporate personhood conflates individual, corporate and commercial speech. Attempting to treat them as separate things might work philosophically, but seems like a legal dead-end. (If you were attempting to speak from a philosophic rather than legal perspective, ignore this paragraph.) I don't see why a corporation should have any less right to free speech than an individual: governments can step on the toes of a company just as easily as a person. Nor do I see why commercial speech should not be protected: I could argue that nearly everything is tied to making money. (Painting a billboard may not be explicitly commercial, but the more exposure people have to such art, the more likely they are to buy it. It's another form of advertising, even if that's not the artist's intent.) Property rights trump speech rights. If you are on my property, I can tell you to shut up and go away. If I own a wall, you do not have the right to draw on it. Nobody is forcing anyone to look at a public billboard. It may be hard not to - but it's also hard not to listen to people preaching on street corners. These preachers are probably just as emotionally manipulative. I wish they weren't there, but I'm glad they have the choice. Edit: I don't think I was very clear. My main point is that if you draw a line between what speech should and shouldn't be protected, I think you will always end up with some speech which needs protecting but is on the wrong side of that line. It will be the kind of speech which a lot of people don't like, but I think that's the most important kind of speech to protect.

space_cowboy 17y ago

>"Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights" That's typically how it works. Paul can ban people from his site. The New York Times can prevent you from publishing an article on its pages. Neither infringes on your free speech rights, as understood by law and Western intellectual tradition.

ankhmoop 17y ago
That's typically how it works. Paul can ban people from his site. The New York Times can prevent you from publishing an article on its pages. Neither infringes on your free speech rights, as understood by law and Western intellectual tradition. Yes. However, I can also choose to not read Hacker News, or The New York Times.

philh 17y ago

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that corporate personhood conflates individual, corporate and commercial speech. Attempting to treat them as separate things might work philosophically, but seems like a legal dead-end. (If you were attempting to speak from a philosophic rather than legal perspective, ignore this paragraph.) I don't see why a corporation should have any less right to free speech than an individual: governments can step on the toes of a company just as easily as a person. Nor do I see why commercial speech should not be protected: I could argue that nearly everything is tied to making money. (Painting a billboard may not be explicitly commercial, but the more exposure people have to such art, the more likely they are to buy it. It's another form of advertising, even if that's not the artist's intent.) Property rights trump speech rights. If you are on my property, I can tell you to shut up and go away. If I own a wall, you do not have the right to draw on it. Nobody is forcing anyone to look at a public billboard. It may be hard not to - but it's also hard not to listen to people preaching on street corners. These preachers are probably just as emotionally manipulative. I wish they weren't there, but I'm glad they have the choice. Edit: I don't think I was very clear. My main point is that if you draw a line between what speech should and shouldn't be protected, I think you will always end up with some speech which needs protecting but is on the wrong side of that line. It will be the kind of speech which a lot of people don't like, but I think that's the most important kind of speech to protect.