• Ulrich@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    but it’s merely a restriction on government.

    It isn’t. Free speech is a right the gov can give you, but it’s also just a concept.

        • sugar_in_your_tea
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          It’s not a strawman, it’s literally what you wrote.

          The Bill of Rights in the US only exists to prevent encroachment on individual rights, they’re not necessary in order for people to have them. Arguably, governments only have rights explicitly granted to them, because they only exist due to the people submitting themselves to them.

          It’s an important distinction, and one so many seem to misunderstand. I’m not saying you do, I’m merely clarifying in case someone else does.

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            It’s not a strawman, it’s literally what you wrote.

            You ignored the point I was making to argue about semantics. Still are. That’s a strawman.

            • sugar_in_your_tea
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              And what was that point? My point is that freedom of speech has nothing to do with private platforms.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I stated my point very bluntly in the comment you replied to above. Freedom of speech is not “merely a restriction on government”. It is a concept that exists outside of government entirely. And it has everything to do with anywhere speech is expressed, including private platforms.

                • sugar_in_your_tea
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 minutes ago

                  Rights only make sense in the context of governments, which have the power to strip my rights through imprisonment. I have no right to speech on a private platform or on private property, I am there at the pleasure of the owner. So talking about rights (esp freedom of speech) makes no sense outside the context of government.

                  That’s why I argue that rights are a restriction (or a check) on the power of governments. Only a tyrannical government will attempt to abridge my rights.

                  Yes, it exists outside of government as a function of your nature, but that means nothing outside the context of an authority with the power to strip it away.