| ▲ | _heimdall 2 hours ago | |||||||
That makes no sense. Free speech is clearly defined, say what you want and the government has no authority to censor you. Anything short of that isn't free speech, and creating some middle ground between "free speech" and "absolutism" is nothing more than an attempt to move the goal posts. What most people seem to miss is that companies like Facebook aren't the government and therefore aren't held to the standard of free speech. Signal ng up for an account and agreeing to their terms gives them authority to censor. | ||||||||
| ▲ | shimman an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||
While free speech may be defined, "free speech advocates" routinely do not care about free speech. They often use it as a rally cry to push their views onto others while working to ensure speech they don't like is silenced. It's similar to how neoliberals say they care about humans when in reality they only care about corporations. Messaging doesn't always match optics. | ||||||||
| ||||||||