The above comment points out that the government has a responsibility to fight people who break other laws, e.g. Murder, vandalism, harassment, etc.

It sounds like your suggesting that these are not enough, that the government should actively pursue those who have not yet committed a crime against someone's body or property, but instead at the point where they are actively threatening (by some definition of that) through speech.

Which by this definition, they would be utilizing their freedom of speech to do... which I think your implying the government should actively suppress. This sounds like it could easily be abused to fight any criticism of any group.

Think a bit lower on the hierarchy, such as police and federal agents. But you are damn right the government should actively defend free speech, especially when it's the First freaking Amendment of the Constitution; of which the United States government is based upon. If the state refuses to defend one part of the Constitution from oppressive forces then the whole thing is potentially irrelevant. History shows this is how governments fall to tyranny.

I fail to see where I'm stating that the state should oppress one group's speech for the benefit of another. I said no such thing.

So, here it is again:

What if the state actively ignores one group's illegal activities (that have nothing to do with speech, such as harassment or violence), that are done solely for the purposes of oppressing another group's ability to exercise their First Amendment rights? At that point the state is complicit in the oppression and is becoming an oppressive state.

I guess for me it's the "active" defense of the First Amendment that concerns me, because depending on what that means it could easily be actively abused in exactly the ways that we're discussing through inactivity.

For this, I think other laws, assuming they're fairly applied, are sufficient and less open to interpretation.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand; if non state actors are involved, then you aren't using your first amendment rights anyway. The first amendment applies to state actors only. Congress shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech. Threats from Muslims stopping you from opening your mouth do not violate "Congress shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech". Threats from Muslims about your speech are not first amendment issues, they are not abridging your first amendment rights in any way.

> What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state?

They aren't. No where is the state not enforcing laws against assault and violence.

I am shocked at how many people seem to think that if the government is not involved, then suppression of free expression is somehow tolerable.

>> They aren't. No where is the state not enforcing laws against assault and violence.

Recent events in Chicago and San Jose come to mind. There are several examples from some subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement that get out of hand and it is actively ignored. I can likely find you several examples of problems on college campuses where violence and property damage are not addressed. There are numerous examples of unions of the past taking rough measures to get their way. I'm sure I can come up with several examples from history if I need to take the time to research it. I would have to apologize in advance since I'm sure Communists, Fascists, and Nazis would come up. If we go outside the scope of speech then there would be countless examples of the government ignoring assault and violence that supports their needs.

Which right is that? It's certainly not the first amendment as that only gives you the right not to be oppressed by the government.

> I am shocked at how many people seem to think that if the government is not involved, then suppression of free expression is somehow tolerable.

I'm shocked at how many people can't seem to understand what the first amendment actually guarantees. You don't have a right of free expression, you merely have the right not to have the government oppress your expression. Why, because giving you the right to express anything you want anywhere you want would violate other people's property rights. Facebook for example, is owned by Facebook; you have no right to force them to allow your content.

> There are several examples from some subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement that get out of hand and it is actively ignored.

I don't believe that. Assault is a local police problem, if the assaulted doesn't report the assault, then the government isn't ignoring it, it's unaware of it.

But you seem to be ignoring that aspect of what I'm saying.

It is the same argument used in the civil rights era when certain states turned a blind eye to racial injustice. The state wasn't always directly oppressing the minority community with their powers, but the Federal government had no issue labeling and punishing those states for oppressing those people. Partly because of the inaction of preventing illegal activities against the minority communities. I don't recall many stories of state officials lynching young black men under the power of the law, but I've heard many of white men doing it with impunity with the law refusing to respond. All for the purposes of oppressing that community. I grew up in the South, I saw such racial injustices throughout my life all the way to college. It's a major reason why I have this attitude about oppression of people.

Please point me to where I have stated that free expression and free speech should allow the violation of property rights. I don't even understand how you can make that statement. I have not included the idea of third-parties being involved in anyone's speech. I have never claimed that one should have the right to post whatever you want on Facebook and that they can be forced to host it. I do not agree with that and feel that Facebook can do whatever they want with their property. I'm confused as to how Facebook even comes into this discussion. I'm not a big fan of pointing out fallacies, but I'm sure you made a couple with that one. I believe straw man is a popular one.

As your thoughts on the right of free expression; depending on your feelings about the United Nations, they disagree with you:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Article 19 : Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Now, granted, the UN tends to ignore that themselves when it comes to several of their member states. But it's there, and it's a natural right due to any free human being.

As for assaults and violence being ignored by police, any news media of your choice will likely lead you to stories on the subject. I fail to see how the government could be unaware of it. I see you skipped over the Chicago and San Jose examples. Also, the assaulted is not required to report to the police for action to be taken if the assault happened in the open.

Facebook often comes up because they curate, suppress, or block some users' comments/photos. Their discretion is framed as a "free speech" issue. Facebook is big so they've become a sort of common "placeholder" for a non-government private entity that limits users' expression. Also, Facebook was mentioned several times in the article that this thread is about.

>As your thoughts on the right of free expression; depending on your feelings about the United Nations, they disagree with you: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Article 19 : Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

The UDHR Article 19 is also about preventing government oppression in similar spirit to the USA First Amendment about "freedom of speech". (See my other comment about UDHR's origins and intended audience.)

People are quoting it out of context and applying it as if it was some universal "free speech without any consequences from non-government actors" proclamation.

I suppose I interpret the title "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as meaning beyond government oppression. I believe in the idea of natural human rights and government exists because we allow it.

Regardless, I interpret government inaction on non-state actors that actively suppress by illegal activities a person's rights to free expression (or speech, whichever makes people happy) as a form of government oppression.

EDIT: thanks for the discussion, you've given me much to consider.

The above sentence is essentially lacking entirely of meaning. As your right of speech/expression can only be invoked when suppressed by a state entity, I assert that a non-state actor cannot possibly violate said right.

Please give me one example of a non-state entity violating your right to not have your speech oppressed by the state?

How does my right to free expression require a state entity? That implies that right is provided for by the state entity. That's not how it works.

Here's an example of how a non-state entity can violate your right to free expression with the state's approval; you start to say something I don't like, I punch you in the face to shut you up. You try again and I punch you again. Now imagine a police officer standing right next to me watching me do it.

The UN Article 19 does not disagree with me, it's also about non government intervention.

Local police corruption is not the same thing as government support. Those incidents are examples of local corruption, not government sanctioned oppression, and they are being addressed and that will take years to play out to see how the state responds.

I've already agreed to your premise around private property, why don't you consider my premise which is different?

I shall read up again on the UN's declarations. I admit it's been quite a few years for me.

Since the local police are an arm of local government, police corruption is the same as government support. When the next level of police hierarchy at the state government level also decides not to respond, then that's government support at the state level. As I said elsewhere, look into the complaints of the civil right's era and how state government's ignored crimes on the black communities.

An officer of the law refusing to enforce the law is incompetence, abuse of authority, or corruption. Executive branch incompetence, even criminal incompetence, is something distinctly different than legislative proscriptions that institutionalize through the power of law unwarranted interference in freedom of expression.

There is no need to label all these problems as instances of infringement on freedom of speech in order to argue that they are inappropriate. They are inappropriate all on their own. Mislabeling them just confuses the discussion.