"Freedom of speech" is used as shorthand for both the general culture of open listening to disagreeable views, and for a series of laws related to the first amendment.

98% of the time people are talking about the former, and the only ones confused are the people assuming they're talking about the latter and linking the face-palm-worthy "showing them the door" XKCD.

▲

jimmydddd 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's also a blurring of private/public in certain instances. There were cases in the 1980's regarding free speech rights in a shopping mall. Privately owned, but a public space (defacto public square).

▲

sodapopcan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 98% of the time people are talking about the former

I'd say damn near 100% of those 98% will still cite the constitution, sometimes even crying "1st amendment!" in lieu of "free speech," so I'd say your overall point is wrong. They are basically saying both at the same time, with intent, while still not understanding it.

▲

Joeboy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From an outside-the-US perspective, this is obviously not true.

▲

howunfortunate 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, some people are talking about the former but are genuinely mixed up about the latter.

What do you feel would be the good-faith way to respond to such people?

Surely it's not by sidetracking into pedantry about the law, which at the end of the day both they and you know that's not what they're really fired up about.

▲

sodapopcan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think that any reasonable person who is just misinformed is going to understand, possibly after some time if they are the sort who find it hard to admit they are wrong. Otherwise, if they are going to try and claim that "No, constitutional 'free speech' means I can say whatever I want without consequence from ANYbody" then I don't think there is a good-faith way to argue that.

▲

RIMR 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anyone who is "fired up" about free speech but feels that their freedom of speech is being violated by someone other than the government has an explanation to give.

If the explanation is that they feel that other people have an obligation to listen to them, then I don't care.

My freedom of speech includes the freedom to reject other people's speech. If they can't tell the difference between a disagreement and suppression of speech, then that's their problem. The generous interpretation is that they don't fully understand the issue. The realistic explanation is that many people value their own freedom of speech over the freedom of others to the extent that they view disagreement with their views as an attack on their right to hold their views.

Essentially, "freedom for me but not for thee", and I don't rightly care about what enemies of freedom are "fired up" about.

But at the end of the day, much of what conservative "free speech" protests against big tech have been about has been that big tech drew a line on things like violence and hatred of protected classes, and conservatives don't like being told that their ideas, while legally allowed, are not welcome in polite company.

	▲	flir 31 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"I'm not American" is a good explanation. America's conception of free speech isn't the only one.
	▲	howunfortunate 11 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> conservatives don't like being told that their ideas, while legally allowed, are not welcome in polite company As long as there are a litany of people like you who are totally comfortable with a double standard like this, the only option for conservatives is to exercise power and forcefully shove the shoe on the other foot until you change your mind. I hate that, but I don't really see another way we'll ever get a culture of free speech, because people like you are completely comfortable exercising power towards a culture of, ironically, "free speech for me but not for thee"