|
|
|
|
|
|
by amalcon
1569 days ago
|
|
|
By this logic, I don't have freedom of speech because I'll be thrown out of your house if I go there and start insulting you. The interesting part about freedom is where it intersects with someone else's freedom. Grandparent is pointing out that this is one of those cases, and the response is that it's not "real" freedom then? |
|
|
You do have some relative, qualified freedoms from government interference.
However, its entirely possible to still be quite restricted in your speech as a practical matter under american style "freedom of speech". For example, rightly or wrongly, parlor had trouble obtaining services. The government didn't interfere, but as a practical matter they probably had more trouble getting their "mesage" out than opposition groups in countries without freedom of speech that could more easily rely on international resources.
And that's not neccesarily a bad thing. America has identified freedom of speech as a sort of fundamental good - so instead of being truthful about it being a qualified right, seem to instead try to redefine the term so that anything not covered by by first amendment isn't "true" freedom of speech.
After all the saying goes: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" not "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to be free from government interference in saying it". There is much more to freedom of speech than just what the first amendment covers.