please don't boost: free speech thoughts
why do people confuse free speech with "the ability to say what you think anywhere you go"?
free speech is protection from your government, limited to words that do not incite harm
free speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say between you and another private party
if someone dislikes what you have to say and thinks you're an ass for saying it the way you did, you have no right to complain about being blocked
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@vahnj free speech is an ideology. first amenment / free press protections of law apply to government, but free speech means in it's purest form the ability to say whatever you want without fear of your ability to say it being taken away. The
protections against governmental censorship. one from that ideology, but are not equivilant. the background for this philosophy lies in the Enlightenment and the challenges that people then faced.
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@Irick you're kind of ignoring the whole point of my post. nobody has to listen to people who want to talk about their ideas, especially if they're being hateful, and they don't have a right to be heard.
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@Irick you're still ignoring the point of my post
which is funny because that's exactly the kind of thing i'm pointing out is important in my post
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@vahnj I'm not ignoring your point. I'm trying to show you the other viewpoint. I understand the argument that you can't and should not force someone to listen, but morality is about should, not have to. I don't think it's right to force people to listen any more than I think it is right to force people to shut up.
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@Irick then why are you trying to debate with me when all i wanted to do was complain about people who use free speech as an excuse to harass people?
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@vahnj because you asked a question. from your question, it was clear you has a specific assumtion that was preventing you from understanding the other argument. in the interest of common ground, I was trying to present the argument in a way that would be understandable.
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@vahnj sorry, I misread the intent of your question.
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@Irick we're cool. I don't really disagree that exchange of info is important but consent and interest have to be weighed for it to be meaningful or even useful.
please don't boost: free speech thoughts
@vahnj you don't have to, but someone who believes in the liberal definition of free speech would argue that is a moral failing. like I said, difference in world view. A middle ground probably exists, but without understanding the fundimental differences between the two stances common ground would be difficult to find. For instance, we could probably agree that attacking someone with speech is not conducive to conversation.