Inconsequential event? This is the aftermath of an attempted coup on our democracy. I would like to know what is consequential in your book.

No 'attempted coup' is inconsequential, but if you want to compare these events to coups and their attempts historically, go right ahead[0].

Looking down that staggeringly long list, I can say with some confidence that this was one of the more inconsequential attempts historically.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...

If the mob that invaded the Capitol building had managed to get to the senators and representatives before they were evacuated, what do you think the mob would have done to them? I think its clear that a substantial number of them would have been murdered.

From here in Europe it looked like an improvised coup attempt. Not a coup as in taking over the country, but a coup as in decapitating part of the government.

A coup means taking over the country. Decapitating part of the government is assassination. /pedantry

> A coup means taking over the country. Decapitating part of the government is assassination. /pedantry

"Definition of coup d'état

: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics

especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9ta...

I'm not sure pedantry contributes much in the circumstances.

Riiiight... "IF" So you mean, like IF there wasn't a gargantuan 'security' apparatus in place just waiting to nip anything like that that was even remotely a _serious_ threat in the bud? (yawn..your ridiculous) hypotheticals don't work.

Free speech refers to government censorship. There is no requirement of anyone or any company to listen to your free speech, or to host it.

Right now this is true. But I think you are slightly misunderstanding the situation. The real question is, should society allow major communications networks used by the majority of a population (private or public) to censor speech.

This is the question for this generation. The laws and constitution can be changed to reflect the will of the majority.

So stop arguing about what the law says now and look at the bigger picture. What should the law say.

> Free speech refers to government censorship.

No, free speech refers to free speech. Government censorship is one thing that can prevent speech being free, but not the only one.

Or put another way, there is a legal concept of "freedom of speech", rooted in the First Amendment in the US, and there is a somewhat separate moral concept, which can be both narrower and broader than the legal one. There is some pretty widespread disagreement on the exact boundaries of the moral concep.

The legal concept did not create the moral concept. The reason there is a First Amendment is that the value of free speech already existed, and was codified, in one limited domain, in the Constitution.

And I am quite sure that if the moral concept becomes too narrow, with overwhelming support for speech restrictions in the population in general, the legal concept will follow, via the amendment process... Which makes it a priority, for me, to push back on attempts to narrow the moral concept absent great need.

Or to put it another way: There is no legal requirement for a non-government entity to allow various speech in the US. But in many cases I would argue there is a moral requirement, even if they disagree with the content of the speech. Obviously, being a moral requirement, there is a line the entity needs to decide on for itself after which it will no longer support said speech.

Do the tendrils not intertwine?

Manufacturing Consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII

The 1st Amendment prohibits government censorship. Free Speech is a larger concept than just the 1st Amendment. It's the ability to speak things that society would prefer not to be spoken. No one needs to listen to it, but if the only place you can speak it is where no one can hear you, is it even really speech?