Truly Free Speech Would Extend to the Private Sector

I propose that 'free speech' as it is currently instituted is relatively worthless in our modern age in which everything is privatized and corporate-owned. What value does freedom of speech have if it only applies in public? Most of our interactions take place within the context of private venues.

You go to work or school - free speech is not guaranteed. You go to a bar, club, restaurant, or 'out' somewhere wherever other human beings gather, and you generally find yourself on corporate property - free speech is not guaranteed. Go to the mall (corporate property) - free speech is not guaranteed. Come home and post on an internet forum, read the mainstream news and participate in the comments section - free speech is not guaranteed. These are the places where the majority of our human interactions and communication take place, yet free speech is not guaranteed in any of the above contexts. In reality, the only place where free speech is guaranteed is out in the public parts of town (as if having free speech while walking on the sidewalk has any real value) and in contexts in which you own the property on which you're speaking (which applies to a tiny minority of us). If corporations own and control every single speaking outlet we have, then we as a society don't actually have free speech at all.

In a truly free and open society, in which ideas can be exchanged and expressed among its members without fear of censorship or suppression, free speech would be guaranteed everywhere, in public and private contexts. Private and corporate censorship is much more damaging to the free flow of information and ideas than any kind of public censorship. That is why I propose that censorship be eradicated and free speech be guaranteed in all contexts, public and private.

I'm sure corporate lapdogs will think this is a radical communist idea and whine on and on about private property and blah blah blah.

A guy on ATS once asked this:

"Is what I am about to post a genuine attempt at civil discourse/debate about the topic or, am I trying to scream at the world and force my personal beliefs down everyone else's throat?"

Originally posted by redbarron626

I'm sure corporate lapdogs will think this is a radical communist idea and whine on and on about private property and blah blah blah.

A guy on ATS once asked this:

"Is what I am about to post a genuine attempt at civil discourse/debate about the topic or, am I trying to scream at the world and force my personal beliefs down everyone else's throat?"

Hey it's their right to write what they wrote, and it's my right to write what I wrote Isn't freedom great?

When an evil person commits murder and the only witnesses around are loyal to him, has a crime been committed? Not according to the witnesses. Same mentality I am seeing around here as late!

The simple fact is that relevant information to important discussions is sometimes removed because of t&c. You can paint it any way you like, but not everything the mods delete is spiteful garbage. The problem people have is with the motto, "Deny ignorance." When a post is deleted, no matter the content, other members are made ignorant by its absence. Ignorance.

the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

We cannot be "aware" of something that is being deliberately kept (deleted) from us.

reply to post by ajay59


It's only a crime if you get caught, duh! Hmmm maybe not always then, either. [snip]

As I posted in a previous thread and it is still just a thought; as a nation supposedly governed by and for the people and the constitution being the law of the land, any people or person to deny a constitutional right would be a denial of rights by the government, period! The mafia killing witnesses was in effect the same as making the topic of guilt OUT OF REACH! Like it or not, it is the same thing! Enough control!

What about the freedom and rights of the owners of companies.

You are suggesting infringement on their liberties.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So only a wealthy few are granted rights, and the masses just get whatever privileges are given them by those wealthy few? No thanks, I'll take guaranteed freedom for everyone. The 'owners' you speak of would still have the same freedoms as everyone else.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
What about the freedom and rights of the owners of companies.

You are suggesting infringement on their liberties.

If you are directing at me, I suggest no such thing. What I have done is merely point out an ideal which this nation was borne on, the will of the PEOPLE! Lest ye forget, the United States government IS a corporation at this time. We must all remember that companies and corporations are not people and that laws to govern PEOPLE were not written to include them.

reply to post by SilentKoala


The 1st Amendment simply means that government cannot make laws that would infringe on free speech. Anyone is free to create their own venue and state what they want.

To own and run their companies the way they wish is protected by the constitution.

Regardless of your feelings you are saying the owners would not be protected by the laws you want to enjoy.

It is called equal rights.

Besides starting an internet site is not that expensive.


BTW my comments are for all.

I think you did a good job in expressing a problem that has an increasingly greater effect as more and more of our communications take place within the digital domain. Problem here is the net is world wide and other countries don't give a toot about American laws or values.
Perhaps a movement could be started to ask corporations to accept a basic convention of human rights that includes freedom of speech. I;m not much of a joiner when it comes to anything so I haven't paid attention to past efforts that may include international declarations of human rights as I know some have been floated around before.

S&F for bringing up an important subject.

I think as many others that a covenant with the corporate world would be and has been a grave error. The freedom of speech as we all well know, was specifically meant for the human being or entity and not to include the corporate entity. Division was never an intention of our forefathers and it is obvious that when a profit is to be made by the few out of the many, division has been achieved. The creators of America knew this and installed fail-safes to prevent it.

reply to post by SilentKoala

School is different if it is funded by tax payer debt, I mean taxes.

Corporations are generally private property.

Think of it in terms of your home. Youre allowed to decide who is allowed on your property and who isnt for any number of reasons, maybe theyre sloppy or steal things or say things that you dont like.

Unless of-course its government that wants to come onto your property. In my opinion, that State should never have blanket authority to come onto your land, especially not into your home. A warrant should be required in every instance.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
To own and run their companies the way they wish is protected by the constitution.

Regardless of your feelings you are saying the owners would not be protected by the laws you want to enjoy.

It is called equal rights.

Besides starting an internet site is not that expensive.


BTW my comments are for all.

edit on 26-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: edit

What is equal between the individual and the corporation? Bank roll? Volume of voice? There is no comparison between the individual and the corporation. Sure, the CEO, the board members(individually) or even the Joe Executive has the equal right to debate Joe Public. The corporation is not even in the same jurisdiction as Joe Public though. Which ever of the aforementioned who has the beef with Joe public, has the INDIVIDUAL equality and jurisdictional right to stand in rebuttal. The corporation has no right to stand as an equal to the individual, IMHO!

reply to post by ajay59


I am no fan of corporations especially the big ones but I am a fan of the constitution.

I also have been part of a corporation that consisted of 4 people.

The fact is what is being suggested essentially take rights away from the owners of those corporation’s so I am not in favor of taking rights away from anyone.

Beezer explained it quite well

The 1st Amendment simply means that government cannot make laws that would infringe on free speech. Anyone is free to create their own venue and state what they want.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by ajay59

 

I am no fan of corporations especially the big ones but I am a fan of the constitution.

I also have been part of a corporation that consisted of 4 people.

The fact is what is being suggested essentially take rights away from the owners of those corporation’s so I am not in favor of taking rights away from anyone.

Beezer explained it quite well

The 1st Amendment simply means that government cannot make laws that would infringe on free speech. Anyone is free to create their own venue and state what they want.

Firstly, I have a great deal of respect for Beezer. Secondly, a corporation is not an individual! Corporations were never afforded the rights of an individual. If you have ever read the Constitution for the United States of America I can assure you that you never seen corporation or anything synonymous or derivative thereof! The keyword being "anyone".

I think this thread had the intent of trying to say people should be allowed to say whatever they want whenever they want wherever they want and pointed towards this site which is privately owned.

I look at this site as being on par to being in someone’s house and this person’s house has rules. If I decide to not follow those house rules they can have me removed from their house.

One person’s rights should not infringe on another’s that is the basic premise which the constitution was writen.

My objective was to express basic human rights and the concept of truth and fairness. I mean no disrespect to any whom have posted in this thread. It is my belief that truth and the path to it IS to deny ignorance, as I feel many others believe as well. Two things that my parents must be praised for instilling in me are,that liars and thieves are the worse traits in society and that doing nothing is complicity.