5 ms·

Speech is a God given right. Nobody can stop you from saying anything you like, but that doesn't extend to inviting you to share that belief with the student bo

Speech is a God given right. Nobody can stop you from saying anything you like, but that doesn't extend to inviting you to share that belief with the student body of your local school. The school are absolutely free to refuse to allow you to use their podium if they don't like what you have to say. Equally, you have every right to set up a website to say whatever you want. That doesn't mean the people who provide the infrastructure behind that website have to continue to host your platform, it doesn't mean other peoples internet providers have to allow access to your website, and it doesn't mean search providers have to list your website in their results. Freedom of speech worked really well when the largest audience you could get was the people in your local tavern, but it doesn't scale to a global internet without some adjustment. Just like your other example of the right to self defence - the idea of taking arms against a tyrannical government made perfect sense when everybody had muskets, but it doesn't really scale when the tyrannical government has drones and nukes.

JohnBooty 7y ago
Freedom of speech worked really well when the largest audience you could get was the people in your local tavern Even then, even before printing presses or the written word itself there were major, major limitations. - You were never allowed to "say whatever you like" in the name of committing fraud - You were never allowed to "say whatever you like" in terms of threats; I don't know any society that would tolerate a person standing outside his neighbor's home and screaming death threats - etc. I make this somewhat pedantic point because the idea of "free speech with limits" is not some kind of modern idea that represents a watering-down of the lofty ideals upon which modern nations were founded, which is why many people seem to object to it. There were always necessary limits to free speech; the right to free speech has never trumped other peoples' rights not to be threatened, killed, defrauded, etc.
- mathgeek 7y ago
  > I don't know any society that would tolerate a person standing outside his neighbor's home and screaming death threats Such societies did and do exist, but usually they are good examples of why we limit hate speech. Nazi Germany and the US South during the KKK’s peak are a couple easy ones to reference. Both of those are examples of societies without free speech that still allowed speech that most societies do not.
  - JohnBooty 7y ago
    And, even then (at least in the US in the late 1800s) it was never legal to scream death threats at people or take other terroristic actions. The laws, unfortunately, were simply well enforced and a lot of people suffered as a result.
louwrentius 7y ago
The freedom of speech actually means that you can say what you want and not be persecuted for it. Except for enticing violence, fraud or etc. In Europe, you can get in jail if you say hateful or discriminatory things. We want to keep our society more decent (although cracks are forming). The freedom of speech indeed doesn't mean that others must facilitate you or listen to you.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  You banned some undefined terms. They mean whatever you want. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olefVguutfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olefVguutfo We should designate a copy of archive.org as critical infrastructure.

JohnBooty 7y ago

Freedom of speech worked really well when the largest audience you could get was the people in your local tavern Even then, even before printing presses or the written word itself there were major, major limitations. - You were never allowed to "say whatever you like" in the name of committing fraud - You were never allowed to "say whatever you like" in terms of threats; I don't know any society that would tolerate a person standing outside his neighbor's home and screaming death threats - etc. I make this somewhat pedantic point because the idea of "free speech with limits" is not some kind of modern idea that represents a watering-down of the lofty ideals upon which modern nations were founded, which is why many people seem to object to it. There were always necessary limits to free speech; the right to free speech has never trumped other peoples' rights not to be threatened, killed, defrauded, etc.

mathgeek 7y ago
> I don't know any society that would tolerate a person standing outside his neighbor's home and screaming death threats Such societies did and do exist, but usually they are good examples of why we limit hate speech. Nazi Germany and the US South during the KKK’s peak are a couple easy ones to reference. Both of those are examples of societies without free speech that still allowed speech that most societies do not.
- JohnBooty 7y ago
  And, even then (at least in the US in the late 1800s) it was never legal to scream death threats at people or take other terroristic actions. The laws, unfortunately, were simply well enforced and a lot of people suffered as a result.

louwrentius 7y ago

The freedom of speech actually means that you can say what you want and not be persecuted for it. Except for enticing violence, fraud or etc. In Europe, you can get in jail if you say hateful or discriminatory things. We want to keep our society more decent (although cracks are forming). The freedom of speech indeed doesn't mean that others must facilitate you or listen to you.

jakeogh 7y ago
You banned some undefined terms. They mean whatever you want. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olefVguutfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olefVguutfo We should designate a copy of archive.org as critical infrastructure.