I always ask these people, "If you argue that it is morally bad for the government to limit your free speech, why then do you think it's ok when other groups and institutions do it?"
-
Freedom of speech is not a value, it's a law concept. It just means government has no power to prevent you from saying what you want.
Britain has a fairly high degree of free speech, with no #1A or constitutional rights at all. Why? It's a cultural _value_ that people support.
-
-
No one is saying that a 1A is required or to credit... just that speech ought not be criminalized. If GB has free speech because they dont make laws against speech... On what basis are we to understand "free speech" as something other than "no laws restricting"?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Britain is not that good on free speech, just ask
@CountDankulaTV. And free speech is about law and government. To ask for someone to be forced to platform you goes against other freedom like freedom of association (ie the right not to be forced to associate with someone) -
We're talking about the freedom to make up your own mind, you have to listen to someone before you can actually do that. You aren't if you let some petty dictators with their brainless algorithms decide for you. Why do you want them to? You keep ignoring the question.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.