Freedom of Speech

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 251
#211
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
it is better to debate him than threaten or ostracize him.
[Athias:] sure, as a general rule, yes

Daryl Davis is a great example for us all

however, there are many technically "unreasonable" individuals
There are indeed, and there always have been, and probably always will be... but if they are unreasonable it will only be truly proven by their speech. If the public is so irrational that they cannot discern irrationality from rationality (or so immoral that they don't care) then censorship will hardly improve them. A broken engine is still broken even if you refuse to put fuel in it. Not a perfect analogy because if there is open debate there is some potential reward for using reason over violence and deception. It would be as if an engine repairs itself sometimes.


What issue do you have?
[Athias:] The suggestion that one's freedom of speech is at all qualified by "shame." Why would "shame" be a factor?
Shame is a powerful factor in controlling others short of violence or deception. I am not saying a person has a right to never be shamed, but the principle of free speech is wider than strict rights just as the golden rule is wider than strict moral liability. For people who believes in the principle it is because they think it makes things better, not merely because someone with a gun is telling them they have to.

To use your example, shame can effectively be used to make a new arrival feel so unwelcome on account of their skin that they cannot stand to stay. They didn't have a right to feel welcome, but it would have been better if they were treated without prejudice. There is a spirit of fairness, a spirit of rationality, a spirit of liberty that (as a christian might say) should be written on the heart not on stone.


Origin of punishment would be anyone that threatens to punish by violation of rights or revocation of privileges. Who could realistically make such threats changes from town to town not to mention hundreds of years.
[Athias:] Government?
...clearly but not exclusively

Origin of punishment would be anyone that threatens to punish by violation of rights or revocation of privileges.
[3RU7AL:] so, basically a parent and or a neighborhood bully
Well a repressive parent yes, and a neighborhood bully who bullies to keep you from talking.

Those are excellent examples of non-government violations of free speech, and the harm (or rather the lack of potential good) that results is palpable.
Topic's author
#212
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It does not, it is mentioned in the constitution. It predated the constitution and an equivalent principle and phrase existed before the English language existed. I recommend you listen to lectures concerning Athens during the greek golden age. It is perhaps the most important history to know.
I'm taking about the principal which has stood as the backbone of American life for over 200 years, which is where the term gets it's strength from. There is a reason "free speech" is such a powerful issue to Americans, and it's not because of the concept you are espousing. I consider this disingenuous and manipulative, you know that the connotation here is powerful and you have no issue trying to use it to your advantage despite it having nothing to do with your actual point of view.
#213
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
It does not, it is mentioned in the constitution. It predated the constitution and an equivalent principle and phrase existed before the English language existed. I recommend you listen to lectures concerning Athens during the greek golden age. It is perhaps the most important history to know.
I'm taking about the principal which has stood as the backbone of American life for over 200 years, which is where the term gets it's strength from. There is a reason "free speech" is such a powerful issue to Americans, and it's not because of the concept you are espousing.
It is the concept I'm describing.
#214
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
We really haven't had free speech since the Patriot Act.
Topic's author
#215
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It is the concept I'm describing.
Complete and utter nonsense.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is entirely about the government restricting the rights of the citizenry. There is nothing about this which suggests that Twitter shouldn't be banning people it takes issues with.

The whole point of freedom of speech is not to protect every demented lunatic's right to have a platform, it's to protect us from becoming Russia - as in a place where the government decides what news we are allowed to hear and what light those stories are allowed to be portrayed in since such treatment will always result in corruption and authoritarianism.
#216
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
This is entirely about the government restricting the rights of the citizenry. There is nothing about this which suggests that Twitter shouldn't be banning people it takes issues with
.... and yet it doesn't say "government" it says "congress" now if the principle was entirely contained and described by the 1st amendment as opposed to being a general American value... why do almost all the state constitutions have their own versions for their own laws?

Topic's author
#217
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You do know that congress, as well as the states, are all... government... right?

I never said the principal was contained within the first amendment. I am using the first amendment to show you that your conception of free speech is something entirely new and not some basic American value as you seem to think.
#218
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The whole point of freedom of speech is not to protect every demented lunatic's right to have a platform, it's to protect us from becoming Russia [or South Korea or Saudi Arabia or even North Korea] - as in a place where the government decides what news we are allowed to hear and what light those stories are allowed to be portrayed in since such treatment will always result in corruption and authoritarianism.
bingo
#219
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Since the Patriot Act, any FBI agent can label you a terrorist for any speech they do not like.

Even if you are just an angry parent upset with the authority of the teacher's union.
#220
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Since the Patriot Act, any FBI agent can label you a terrorist for any speech they do not like.

Even if you are just an angry parent upset with the authority of the teacher's union.
yep
#221
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Since the Patriot Act, any FBI agent can label you a terrorist for any speech they do not like.

Even if you are just an angry parent upset with the authority of the teacher's union.
#222
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Don't censor Disney.  They get free speech to advocate for teaching drag queen story hour to 5 year olds even if that speech is horrible.  But the right is cheering on the Florida man because they will do anything to own the libs.
Topic's author
#223
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
"Dont sensor Disney" is a cartoonishly ignorant way to characterize what we've been talking about. I suggest you read and respond to the actual points made if you'd like to have a serious conversation.

#224
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The First Amendment is pretty clear. Here it is in its entirety: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That’s it. The amendment speaks solely to governmental action that abridges free speech, not to societal actions or the actions of other individuals.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court made it plain that these protections extended to corporations as well: “The First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity.” In other words, corporations have the same free-speech rights as all Americans.

Again, that’s it. It doesn’t say that a state government can’t dissolve special jurisdictions or that the governor can’t be peeved at a company and look for ways to persuade them of the error of their ways.

The First Amendment doesn’t protect anyone from the vagaries of the political or social systems in which they reside. It simply precludes state and federal legislatures from abridging or preventing speech. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers.

The First Amendment is not the only defense of free speech in the Constitution. The principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, believed that the mechanisms of the Constitution itself provided sufficient protection for civil liberty, and he was (correctly, as history has borne him out) concerned an enumeration of rights — like the Bill of Rights — eventually would evolve into limits on rights.

Madison was a sturdy advocate of free speech and absolute necessity of public debate and saw clearly that no law could bind a free society better than their own sensibilities and tolerances. In December 1791, he wrote: “Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one.” It is the people, and only the people, who rule. For that rule to be wise and fully informed, the people have to be able to communicate with one another away from the tentacles of a grasping government.

The Constitution assumes, a priori, a public that is literate, engaged and free to participate in the development of public policies and laws and the creation of the underlying opinions and beliefs that form the foundation of those laws. It is, to borrow from John Adams, wholly unsuited for any other sort of people.

That communication, because it is about the most meaningful and the most essential issues of the day, is always going to be contentious. Consequently, it is incumbent on all citizens to be as tolerant of alternative viewpoints as possible, and when such tolerance is not possible, those with less popular viewpoints need to be brave enough and durable enough to withstand aggressive criticism.

At all times, it is important for everyone to remember that free speech is a gift from God and a natural consequence of the dignity and worth of all people. Moreover, it is an essential practicality in a society not ruled by monarchs. If people cannot participate in societal decision-making processes in a peaceful manner, they will eventually resort to violence.

In short, the alternative to free speech is not silence. The alternative is violence. 

In many respects, the great generational challenge we face — reclaiming and reasserting the essential nature of our institutions, perhaps chiefly among them the Constitution — depends on our ability to protect and value free speech while understanding that governments have limits, both positive and negative.

Which brings us back to Disney. Disney’s First Amendment rights were not compromised by the Florida government. Nor have the First Amendment rights of those who have been banned from Twitter or Facebook or been attacked by an unruly online mob been abridged by Congress or any other jurisdiction of the United States.

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a spot on the evening news. It only guarantees that Congress (and, through the operation of the 14th Amendment, the states) can’t pass a law abridging your freedom of speech. Everything else is at the suffrage of your audiences.

#225
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
"Dont sensor Disney" is a cartoonishly ignorant way to characterize what we've been talking about. I suggest you read and respond to the actual points made if you'd like to have a serious conversation.
I read some of the posts, but there are hundreds of them in this thread, so do you really expect me to read all of them?  Too hard.
#226
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
It only guarantees that Congress (and, through the operation of the 14th Amendment, the states) can’t pass a law abridging your freedom of speech. Everything else is at the suffrage of your audiences.
great point
#227
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Shame is a powerful factor in controlling others short of violence or deception. I am not saying a person has a right to never be shamed, but the principle of free speech is wider than strict rights just as the golden rule is wider than strict moral liability.
If you're in fact suggesting that a person does not have the right to never be shamed, then why would shame play any role in the examination of the principle? If the right to Free Speech is based on the principle of free speech, then "shame" is not a measure. Because, as previously mentioned, one doesn't have the right to not be "shamed."

To use your example, shame can effectively be used to make a new arrival feel so unwelcome on account of their skin that they cannot stand to stay. They didn't have a right to feel welcome, but it would have been better if they were treated without prejudice. There is a spirit of fairness, a spirit of rationality, a spirit of liberty that (as a christian might say) should be written on the heart not on stone.
Then "shame" provides a unsubstantiated caveat to the principle. How would it be "unfair," or "irrational," or "lacking liberty" in spirit?




#228
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
Shame is a powerful factor in controlling others short of violence or deception. I am not saying a person has a right to never be shamed, but the principle of free speech is wider than strict rights just as the golden rule is wider than strict moral liability.
If you're in fact suggesting that a person does not have the right to never be shamed, then why would shame play any role in the examination of the principle?
I don't see the implication. Whether non-shame is a right or not has nothing to do with it. Shame is a means short of violence to discourage something, but if that thing is valuable (or neutral) it should not be discouraged.

If the right to Free Speech is based on the principle of free speech, then "shame" is not a measure. Because, as previously mentioned, one doesn't have the right to not be "shamed."
To be clear there isn't exactly a "right to free speech", there is a right to not be attacked for speech. Just as there isn't a right to life, there is right not to be murdered.

The "right to free speech"="right to not be attacked for speech" was specifically recognized because free speech was correctly identified as being valuable to society. The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.

To use your example, shame can effectively be used to make a new arrival feel so unwelcome on account of their skin that they cannot stand to stay. They didn't have a right to feel welcome, but it would have been better if they were treated without prejudice. There is a spirit of fairness, a spirit of rationality, a spirit of liberty that (as a christian might say) should be written on the heart not on stone.
Then "shame" provides a unsubstantiated caveat to the principle. How would it be "unfair," or "irrational," or "lacking liberty" in spirit?
I can only assume you're asking the question about the example.

Racism is irrational, the genetic variations in behavior are eclipsed many times by the volitional variations.
Racism is unfair, everyone has some genetic variation from their neighbors and no one would want to feel unwelcome on account of them
Racism is against the spirit of liberty because even though privileges are not rights, a liberal mindset is gratified when people may pursue their own values and does not withhold privileges for insignificant or petty reasons.

#229
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Racism is irrational
is defending your own family "irrational" ?
#230
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't see the implication. Whether non-shame is a right or not has nothing to do with it. Shame is a means short of violence to discourage something, but if that thing is valuable (or neutral) it should not be discouraged.
I'm not suggesting that you implicated it; you outright stated it:

Of the principle of free speech?:

Man, being a rational animal, should not be punished or shamed for expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This is his better nature.

To be clear there isn't exactly a "right to free speech", there is a right to not be attacked for speech.
We can analyze this with respect to negative rights as opposed to positive if you prefer, but the point still remains.

The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.
The first 10 are claimed to be such a list (i.e. "Bill of Rights.")

Racism is irrational, the genetic variations in behavior are eclipsed many times by the volitional variations.
Racism is unfair, everyone has some genetic variation from their neighbors and no one would want to feel unwelcome on account of them
Racism is against the spirit of liberty because even though privileges are not rights, a liberal mindset is gratified when people may pursue their own values and does not withhold privileges for insignificant or petty reasons.
First, define racism.


#231
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
[3RU7AL:] Racism is irrational
is defending your own family "irrational" ?
Not in most cases.

[Athias:] I'm not suggesting that you implicated it; you outright stated it:

Of the principle of free speech?:

Man, being a rational animal, should not be punished or shamed for expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This is his better nature.
That is what I stated. It does not rely on non-shaming being a right and I do not understand why you think the non-rightness of non-shaming means a principle can't preclude shaming.

The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.
The first 10 are claimed to be such a list (i.e. "Bill of Rights.")
Even if it were written that it was a complete list, that would not prove it was a complete list. It is not written, and in fact another section of the constitution specifically disclaims the possibility.

Racism is irrational, the genetic variations in behavior are eclipsed many times by the volitional variations.
Racism is unfair, everyone has some genetic variation from their neighbors and no one would want to feel unwelcome on account of them
Racism is against the spirit of liberty because even though privileges are not rights, a liberal mindset is gratified when people may pursue their own values and does not withhold privileges for insignificant or petty reasons.
First, define racism.

#232
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That is what I stated. It does not rely on non-shaming being a right and I do not understand why you think the non-rightness of non-shaming means a principle can't preclude shaming.
Remember I stated this:

The suggestion that one's freedom of speech is at all qualified by "shame." Why would "shame" be a factor?
Your mention of shame in your description of the principle suggests a qualification--i.e. the extension of the principle necessitates the modification "shame" provides (otherwise, there'd be no need to mention it at all.)

Even if it were written that it was a complete list, that would not prove it was a complete list.
Never said it was written.

It is not written, and in fact another section of the constitution specifically disclaims the possibility.
I know the Constitution allows for amendments. That is not the point. You stated:

The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.
And replied to the effect that the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) are "claimed" to be, in that they explicitly delineate the limitations of government. Of course, de facto, this is not true. Thus, I used the term, "claimed," rather than just "are."

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
So it is your position that "free speech" should be preclude "racist" speech per Ayn Rand's description?
#233
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
is defending your own family "irrational" ?
Not in most cases.
isn't tribalism (aka "rooting for the home team") a natural extension of "protecting your own family" ?
#234
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
wow

this seems to place a monumental weight (the "value" of humanity itself) on the (rather elusive) pin-head of "free-will"
#235
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
[Athias:] The suggestion that one's freedom of speech is at all qualified by "shame." Why would "shame" be a factor?
Your mention of shame in your description of the principle suggests a qualification--i.e. the extension of the principle necessitates the modification "shame" provides (otherwise, there'd be no need to mention it at all.)
Using a list of categories for illustrative purposes is a common rhetorical device, you read assumptions into it in this case.

"Man, being a rational animal, should not be punished or shamed for expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This is his better nature."
=
"Man, being a rational animal, should not be discouraged from expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This is his better nature."

A more informal definition of punishment might include shaming, but I included the word "shaming" to emphasize that the principle is wider than a rejection of violence, fines, or threats thereof.

[Athias:] And replied to the effect that the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) are "claimed" to be
If you aren't claiming they are what does it matter? It looks like you led my down a dead end for no particular reason. Is there in fact any cheese in this shop at all?

[Athias:] So it is your position that "free speech" should be preclude "racist" speech per Ayn Rand's description?
Hardly, it was clearly an example of other principles which are do not strictly exist along the lines of objective social rights.

is defending your own family "irrational" ?
Not in most cases.
[3RU7AL:] isn't tribalism (aka "rooting for the home team") a natural extension of "protecting your own family" ?
Natural selection might think so, but the rational mind knows better in many circumstances and in the circumstances where protecting your family is rational we tend not to call it tribalism.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
[3RU7AL:] wow

this seems to place a monumental weight (the "value" of humanity itself) on the (rather elusive) pin-head of "free-will"
Reason and choice have monumental weight. Whether it is truly unique to humanity or not is besides the point.
#236
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
this seems to place a monumental weight (the "value" of humanity itself) on the (rather elusive) pin-head of "free-will"
Reason and choice have monumental weight. Whether it is truly unique to humanity or not is besides the point.
at what point did you reason-and-choose to avoid pain and discomfort

at what point exactly did you reason-and-choose to enjoy your favorite food and drink
#237
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Using a list of categories for illustrative purposes is a common rhetorical device, you read assumptions into it in this case.
There are no assumptions being read into this case. I'm attempting to grasp the necessity of "shame's" inclusion in your description of the principle of free speech. And you did include it--rhetorical purposes notwithstanding. I did not assume that.

Case in point: Let's for a moment consider that I described "voluntarism" as the principle in which man ought to act and organize without being subjected to or being the initiator of violence, aggression, coercion, and/or duress.  If I were to include "shame" among this list of qualifiers, what then would my description of the principle suggest?

A more informal definition of punishment might include shaming, but I included the word "shaming" to emphasize that the principle is wider than a rejection of violence, fines, or threats thereof.
Why would the principle be wider than "rejection of violence, fines, or threats thereof"?

If you aren't claiming they are what does it matter?
The suggestion informs that the government's maintenance of the Bill of Rights is a lie.

Hardly, it was clearly an example of other principles which are do not strictly exist along the lines of objective social rights.
So if something as presumably "shameful" as "racist speech" should not be precluded by the principle of free speech, then I ask once again, why is "shame" included in free speech's purview?


#238
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
 why is "shame" included in free speech's purview?
bingo

isn't "shame" also free-speech ??
Topic's author
#239
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn’t say that a state government can’t dissolve special jurisdictions or that the governor can’t be peeved at a company and look for ways to persuade them of the error of their ways.

The amendment speaks solely to governmental action that abridges free speech
An example of governmental action that abridges free speech would be for a government to pass a law revoking benefits a company was previously receiving as retaliation for that company’s criticisms of their actions.
Topic's author
#240
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
To be clear there isn't exactly a "right to free speech", there is a right to not be attacked for speech.
This conversion is not about physical retaliation, so “attacked” in this sense is just an overhyped word being used to mean “criticized”.

Therefore your statement is that in principal we have a right to not be criticized for our speech. But the right to criticize someone else is literally what free speech means, so this statement is self refuting.