Free Speech Exists

Did the other argument thread run it's course?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: schuyler
The entire argument begs the question. It reminds me of the adage, "Freedom of the Press is for those who own one." Freedom of speech is meaningless if it cannot be disseminated or heard. So do you have freedom to be published? Sure, if you have help. The days of printing your own pamphlets and distributing them in the town square are over. You need some cooperation--and an Internet connection. You need to squeeze into an existing site like ATS and abide by their Terms and Conditions. And, for the record, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Yes, technically, free speech exists, but it is meaningless without context. It's like that old Stephen Crane poem:

A man said to the universe: “Sir, I exist!” “However,” replied the universe, “The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation.”

And LesMis: "anyways"??? Really?

I will disagree on one point.

Free speech does not exist. Freedom of speech does, but there are costs to everything so nothing is ever "free".

How can any sentence be so pedantic and so wrong at the same time? Your confusing the issue. As an ADVERB "free" means "without cost or payment," as in "free beer." As an ADJECTIVE "free" means "not confined or imprisoned" or "not under the control of others." Two different parts of speech. Two definitions. You are confusing one with the other. You can disagree if you want, but you are flat out incorrect and expose yourself as not understanding the issue at all.

a reply to: introvert

Good for them. Actually, I produce quite a bit of CC content for other people to use freely. But that is my choice.

If I wanted to copyright my work for whatever purpose, that is my right and those protections are not an act of censorship.

Good for you.

I never said copyright, nor the protections, is an act of censorship. I believed you argued copyright infringement is an example of speech infringing on someone's rights and freedoms. I only argued the opposite: that no one owns, nor can own, certain combinations of words. Copyright is a matter of law, not human rights.

Your ignorance is not my burden to bear.

Apparently I know more about socialism than you do.

I know. By your own definition, those that protect people's personal property rights are censors, if that product came from the use of freedom of speech.

Remember, you can't copyright a combination of words, right?

That means music, art, books, etc should not be protected and if it is, that is censorship.

No, by my definition, censorship is the suppression of free speech. See above.