Permissive zealots argue that such a restriction is unacceptable, on the grounds that any restriction is unacceptable. Apparently they don't even approve of the insurance policy that prevents the very restrictions they say they loath.
The present thread has the same structure. Someone says it's unacceptable for an entity (not even a person!) to restrict one's freedom of speech with no recourse, and the moral equivalent of the Permissive Zealot snaps that forbidding that power to forbid is unacceptable, "because freedom".
Do libertarians realise that permission without ability means nothing?
I very much like the idea that no one has the "freedom" to deprive me of my citizens' freedoms. I mean, that's supposed to be the job of judges and juries.
> No more freedom of speech, no more freedom of information, that's pretty heavy stuff.
I don't think you know what freedom of speech even means to be saying that here. Freedom of speech means the government can't limit your speech or punish you for it, it doesn't mean you have a right to every broadcast medium that exists for speech.
I was talking about the trinet hypothesis, where (roughly speaking), Facebook is the internet. If I was banned from that, I couldn't even have a blog.
> Freedom of speech means the government can't limit your speech or punish you for it
Replace "government" by "no one", and I would agree. (I'll accept one exception, though: judges, when punishing me for some bad deed.)
> it doesn't mean you have a right to every broadcast medium that exists for speech.
Correct. But it does mean I have a right to at least one broadcast medium. By the way, freedom of speech only become real when the masses got internet access. Before then, only a select few could exercise that right: those with write access to radio, television, or journals.
No. In the U.S. which is all I care about, no one but the government can violate your right to free speech. You do not have a right to not be censored by anyone nor should you.
> But it does mean I have a right to at least one broadcast medium.
No it does not; it doesn't remotely mean any such thing.
> By the way, freedom of speech only become real when the masses got internet access.
That's nonsense. Anyone anywhere can walk out into any public area and speak to the crowd; freedom of speech does not in any way imply freedom to wide area broadcast mediums, it means only that you can't get in trouble from the authorities for holding unpopular views. If your views are popular, they will gain an audience from word of mouth alone. You never had a right to TV, or the paper, or any other medium.
That's freedom of thought.
Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous.
You can't be that stupid, and I'm not sure I mean that well.
---
PS: I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech", it was defined at a time when it couldn't mean anything significant for the common people. Just understand that I'm talking about something broader, more powerful, enabled by the internet. Maybe you don't care about that broader freedom. But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care.
Don't be absurd, thought can't be policed absent being made public via speech so it must necessarily involve speech to even be an issue. You're stammering to find a position because your own isn't logically coherent; that's what's happening here.
> Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous.
No, it's what's always been intended; no speech is guaranteed to have influence, what an absurd notion to even ponder. Such a thing cannot ever be guaranteed.
> I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech"
Well I don't care about this nonsense freedom you're making up because it imposes on other people's rights and can't be called a right. You do not have a right to other people's services, period. This broader freedom you're proclaiming is actually toxic abuse of private property, it's not freedom.
> But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care.
You don't have a right to have accounts on other people's systems. If every business you have an account with bans you, you're the problem, not them.
Do you Libertarians realise that permission without ability means nothing?
Feels like permissive vs copyleft all over again.