[dvt]

> That doesn't sound right to me. You basically just argued "The purpose of a right to free speech is to protect the right of free speech." It's circular reasoning. Why should free speech be a right?

That's not what GP argued, and you're being quite uncharitable. Their argument goes something like this:

    1) Free speech is meant to protect those that don't have a monopoly on speech 
    2) The government has a monopoly on—or can coerce—speech (because it taxes you, appoints the judges, has a police force, etc.)
    3) Therefore, protecting the free speech of the government is not really a stewardship of free speech

This argument makes sense and is not circular. The definition of free speech doesn't even come into play (and is in fact assumed to be desirable: after all, it's in the Bill of Rights.)

[staticman2]

" 1) Free speech is meant to protect those that don't have a monopoly on speech "

You lost me here.

How can the government have a monopoly on speech if we're talking about the government being prevented from saying things by a judge?

[dvt]

> How can the government have a monopoly on speech if we're talking about the government being prevented from saying things by a judge?

The judicial branch is supposed to be independent by design[1], so it's of the government, but not quite the government.

[1] https://judiciallearningcenter.org/judicial-independence/

[staticman2]

So the judicial branch is and is not quite the government, and the government has a mnonopoly on speech even though they can't say things, and I'm being uncharitable by finding this argument less than coherent. Got it.

[dvt]

> (1) So the judicial branch is and is not quite the government, and (2) the government has a mnonopoly on speech even though they can't say things

On (1): yes, that's the idea behind the independent role of the judiciary. They're supposed to be quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Sometimes, it doesn't work out, but usually it does. I'll concede that there's gray area here, but not quite enough to make the argument non-coherent.

On (2): the government can definitely say things (the White House literally has a Communications Director), but also (and more importantly) both stifle and coerce speech. I'm not sure how you came to this second conclusion.

[staticman2]

My issue is your claim the government has a monopoly on speech, not your other claims.

Imagine I'm a visitor from mars and you tell me the government has a monopoly on speech. I say, fascinating, so only the government is allowed to talk?

And you say, well no, anybody can talk, generally.

And I say, oh, do you mean the government does the majority of the talking?

And you say no, most talking is done by private individuals.

And I say oh, do you mean the government decides what people can say?

And you say no, no exactly, see there's these people called judges who are not quite the government who prevent the government from deciding what people can say.

And I'm thinking "?????????"

[dvt]

> My issue is your claim the government has a monopoly on speech, not your other claims.

Ah gotcha, yeah maybe that's too strong of a premise. You can probably fix it by saying "potential monopoly" or something in the vein of "it would be easiest for the government to monopolize speech," as historically, freedom of the press was meant to counter or criticize strong central governments (e.g. monarchies).