[malermeister]

The core point made here is wrong.

> 6/ Freedom of speech might require such activities like:

> A website

> A pamphlet

> An advertisement

> Paying a graphic designer

> Travelling to a different location

All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now!

Same for all the other various things mentioned in this thread. None of the things are requirements for the rights. You can worship and pray without a physical building, you can assemble without buying hot dogs etc etc.

> All of which "cost money".

This is the world that crypto folks want, but it's not the reality (at least yet). You can do plenty of things without money, including exercising said rights. The problem is that they can't conceive that because their worldview is centered around trying to monetize everything and every interaction - interactions that don't involve money aren't valid to them.

[exolymph]

Uh, no, your speech would be moot without the people who pay for the website allowing you to use it. You don't contribute financially because you are the product (an audience of engineers for YC companies to influence and recruit). Make no mistake, though, money is a crucial element of your ability to broadcast your thoughts here.

[bhelkey]

> All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now!

What did you use to post this comment?

[salawat]

Change freedom of speech to "freedom to realistically effect change", and you'll ultimately end up at the point everyone is dancing around, but no one is willing to say out loud.

Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about.

You can't buy a printing press without... Money. You can't buy a computer without... Money You can't get an internet connection without... Money.

You can't just pass this off as cryptobros being cryptobros.

Canada is basically saying, no one shall be serviced whose capital is getting allocated to "this".

And that is dangerous, especially when done unilaterally by the executive government. Call me an overly stiff contrarian if you want, but a spade is a spade, whether you want to call it something else. That people are busy playing these semantic games should be reason for pause.

[malermeister]

What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say.

Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyone has a say, not just the Peter Thiels that can buy printing presses.

[jevoten]

But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.

[8note]

Properly, the government needs to fund the publication of speech by every citizen, so anyone can spend as much as Peter Thiel can

[salawat]

Square one. What the government giveth, it can take away. See Canada.

[salawat]

Info propagation isn't free. Even at the atomic unit, you and someone to listen to you, requires the organization of participants to scale beyond triviality. Realistically, within the societal framework we operate in, there isn't really feasible decoupling of funds from access to anplification. You're not safe relying on government subsidy, because, well, square one.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about.

Nobody has freedom to be heard. "Freedom to be heard" equals "freedom to force others to listen (or at least to hear)". I deny that anyone legitimately has that freedom.

[salawat]

The Court, the Executive, and anyone sufficiently close to tweak their or, or with a big enough pocket book to have a lobbyist's ear beg to differ. Hence, the concern whenever it appears Governments are flexing it a bit brazenly.

[engineer_22]

What good is "freedom of speech" if you can only talk to yourself?

[Teever]

Freedom is speech isn't the freedom to make people listen.

[tdhoot]

Great. You have the freedom to speak, as long as it’s only in your head or into a corner where no one can ever hear you.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to make people listen, but the government can’t make that choice for people.

[engineer_22]

"make people listen"

Like, coercion? As in, physically restrain someone so they must engage with my ideas?

[Teever]

No, we're talking about a situation in Ottawa where people are blaring their truck horns for hours at a time with a complete lack of regard for how the citizens of that city feel about it.

[engineer_22]

Oh, I thought we were talking about freedom of speech.

[malermeister]

You clearly listened to me. I didn't spend any money on that. Case in point.

[engineer_22]

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.

Maybe it would be clearer if you told me what "freedom of speech" means to you .

[colburnmh]

You have the right to talk all you want. You don't have the right to force anyone to listen to you, nor to prevent others from pursuing their daily lives. Nor does freedom of speech imply that your speech is free from repercussions. The government (federal, state, or local) cannot prevent you from saying most things, or retaliating against you. But most everyone else can within the bounds of legality.

Freedom of speech means you can stand on the corner and yell about the "undisputed benefits of cryptocurrencies". It also means me and a group of my friends can surround you and sing "Baby Shark" repeatedly at the top of our lungs, drowning out your message.

[malermeister]

Freedom of speech means freedom to speak. We're speaking freely right now, aren't we? And I didn't have to create a website or an ad or pay a graphic designer or any of the many things claimed in that Twitter thread.

[engineer_22]

Maybe you don't pay to use the internet, but I do.

If the government froze my bank account so I couldn't pay my phone bill, I wouldn't be free to speak to you right now.

[colburnmh]

That's not true. You just wouldn't be free to speak on this medium.

I don't have the right to speak in the Queen's bedroom in Buckingham Palace, either.

Neither of those things are significant limitations on the freedom of speech.