We aren’t talking about law, we are talking about spirit. It’s perfectly legal for you to ask Google to take it down and for them to take it down. The point is, that goes against the spirit of this culture, which is that you really can’t and shouldn’t silence someone in general.
Again, I ask, are they lying or do they have accurate points? This is best taken as a learning experience because treating it as a battle is going to get you nowhere.
> We aren’t talking about law, we are talking about spirit.
ah damn, one of the the philosophical free speech people that made up a standard the spot, I wrote in a related comment:
> its hard to tell which people just completely misunderstand the first amendment, and which people are talking about a "philosophical" free speech that they made up on the spot to bolster their point
so, what does that have to do with any particular country? what countries is it different? what is particular about the country you speak of?
Where did I say this country is unique? Every country could be identical for all I care, that isn’t the point. The point is, here, we have the idea that you can’t shut anyone up. Maybe everywhere else they have that idea too, but again, that isn’t the point.
the adjectives and adverbs in front of 'country' suggest something 'particular' about one country or a category of countries, which is the word I used, purposefully avoiding the word 'unique'
the difference now seems to be that I avoid words that I don't mean and can't rely on
it seems like you mean to say that a country has a cultural misunderstanding of a shorthand version of the first amendment that is so pervasive that many people think they can rely on it out of context, except for people that choose to operate within reality when convenient
is that closer to the point you are trying to make?
No, the first amendment is totally disconnected from what I said. What I said instead is that our culture is about free expression. This is an important lead-in to the whole Hacker News saying, "information wants to be free." It's interesting that instead of answering the question I asked (effectively revealing the answer), you've chosen to go down this unrelated tangent.
which question? I don't know if the reviewer's criticisms are accurate, thats the question you asked multiple times but its not a question for me so its better I ignore it. I just assumed the other questions where rhetorical and it looks like I addressed them.
also I get stuff booted off the internet all the time, in the US, which is a pretty strong "cultural free speech/expression" place. so my reality is pretty different than yours.
Your argument doesn't logically follow. I can't connect your first and second sentences to any point anyone was making.
Asking google to take down someones opinion about a business would be violating that persons first amendment right (assuming they are American). Unless you could prove libelous intent. (which luckily is very hard to prove and doesn't cover someone disliking your business)
> Asking google to take down someones opinion about a business would be violating that persons first amendment right (assuming they are American)
ah, there it is. since Google is not the Government yet, them taking action would not violate that person's first amendment right, and asking Google to do so would not violate that person's first amendment right
I wonder what the person I initially replied to thinks
its hard to tell which people just completely misunderstand the first amendment, and which people are talking about a "philosophical" free speech that they made up on the spot to bolster their point
Again, I ask, are they lying or do they have accurate points? This is best taken as a learning experience because treating it as a battle is going to get you nowhere.