4 ms·

It was the revalation that what he, and evidently you, think is innocent, is not de facto true. It was not innocent to them, and he realized that he was warned

It was the revalation that what he, and evidently you, think is innocent, is not de facto true. It was not innocent to them, and he realized that he was warned of this but didn't respect it. It illustrates a great point about freedom of speech: You are free to say what you want, but that does not mean it's without consequences.

jmharvey 12y ago
Free speech means that even though your speech can have consequences, but those consequences can't come from the government, as was the case here.
- lmm 12y ago
  It doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. It doesn't make any difference whether it's a government, a corporation, or an individual who's stopping you speaking. The first amendment only applies to the government, but the first amendment is only one part of free speech.
  - unionpivo 12y ago
    I disagree. It makes big difference weather its government or somebody else. Government has too much power(guns) so it must be checked, and strict rules on what they can and can't do established. On the other hand private entities, should be allowed to say for them self what you can or can't do with their equipment (work PC's, phones) and on their premises (digital and physical: homes, offices, blogs, forums, ... ). This is fundamental for private ownership to have any meaning. And if you don't like rules that this private entity has established you can go elsewhere. (anti monopoly law's should ensure you have that option ; but they are not always perfect or applied) So freedom of speech should only apply to governments.
    - lmm 12y ago
      In practice these days we have a lot more choice of government (there are dozens of reasonable countries you can move to without changing your lifestyle too much) than of particular corporations (avoiding apple, google and microsoft would involve substantial changes to most people's lifes). Ownership doesn't have to be absolute to have meaning. You've always been forbidden from using your property in illegal ways (e.g. just because you own a knife doesn't mean you have the right to stab someone with it; just because you own a field doesn't mean you're allowed to bury toxic waste there).
- hvidgaard 12y ago
  Free speech means you are free to say what you want, but you may be violating a law, and that may have consequences. It's "freedom of speech" to systematically call the mayor of your town gay, do it enough and you might be charged with defamation. In other words, "free speech" does not protect you against breaking the law. In any case, my point simply is that whatever you say, there will be consequences, however backwards they may be. I used "free speech" as an example here, because he was entirely within his right to write it - it just had a consequence (that may or may not be illegal in it self, but that is unknown).
ghshephard 12y ago
You've got it entirely backwards here - the entire article was about an island in which freedom of speech does not exist. If he'd been free to say what he wanted (and he did very, very little of that), then he wouldn't have been banned from the island.

jmharvey 12y ago

Free speech means that even though your speech can have consequences, but those consequences can't come from the government, as was the case here.

lmm 12y ago
It doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. It doesn't make any difference whether it's a government, a corporation, or an individual who's stopping you speaking. The first amendment only applies to the government, but the first amendment is only one part of free speech.
- unionpivo 12y ago
  I disagree. It makes big difference weather its government or somebody else. Government has too much power(guns) so it must be checked, and strict rules on what they can and can't do established. On the other hand private entities, should be allowed to say for them self what you can or can't do with their equipment (work PC's, phones) and on their premises (digital and physical: homes, offices, blogs, forums, ... ). This is fundamental for private ownership to have any meaning. And if you don't like rules that this private entity has established you can go elsewhere. (anti monopoly law's should ensure you have that option ; but they are not always perfect or applied) So freedom of speech should only apply to governments.
  - lmm 12y ago
    In practice these days we have a lot more choice of government (there are dozens of reasonable countries you can move to without changing your lifestyle too much) than of particular corporations (avoiding apple, google and microsoft would involve substantial changes to most people's lifes). Ownership doesn't have to be absolute to have meaning. You've always been forbidden from using your property in illegal ways (e.g. just because you own a knife doesn't mean you have the right to stab someone with it; just because you own a field doesn't mean you're allowed to bury toxic waste there).
hvidgaard 12y ago
Free speech means you are free to say what you want, but you may be violating a law, and that may have consequences. It's "freedom of speech" to systematically call the mayor of your town gay, do it enough and you might be charged with defamation. In other words, "free speech" does not protect you against breaking the law. In any case, my point simply is that whatever you say, there will be consequences, however backwards they may be. I used "free speech" as an example here, because he was entirely within his right to write it - it just had a consequence (that may or may not be illegal in it self, but that is unknown).

ghshephard 12y ago

You've got it entirely backwards here - the entire article was about an island in which freedom of speech does not exist. If he'd been free to say what he wanted (and he did very, very little of that), then he wouldn't have been banned from the island.