I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight.
There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many types of speech simply disappear. /b/tards actively inhibit other types of conversation. So freedom of speech can't be axiomatic: it is internally inconsistent.
When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech [edit: though, as pg has pointed out, they intended to include the printed word in their discussion.]. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works. They were not so clairvoyant as to see how powerful small publishing houses and studios could become.
One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech. Everyone should have a place for their voice, but I am unwilling to protect any right to intrude.
Though I agree with your point about freedom of speech being internally inconsistent, the founding fathers definitely meant speech to include the printed word.
a) There is more to trolling than "bigot firefights". That's amateur hour. Real trolling is coming to say a PC forum and calling them retards for not owning a mac
b) And I would hardly call 4chan a big firefight either. Its not like its stormfront, its not like the site is only about racism. That's the whole point of the site, everything that is not illegal goes. And who are you to impose your morality on other people?
c)You can run your site however you want, you have the freedom.Like I said, if you don't like it, stop your bitching, close your browser, and move on with your life.
d)Like I said thats the whole point of freedom of speech, its not there to protect "not intrusive" speech, its there to protect the speech that makes religious zealots like you, bitch and moan about, like video games, just because the main characters uses the word fuck. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
e) There you go again selectively choosing which rights people should have. Ok I'll play your little game, we aren't allowed to use freedom of speech about published content that people can see(even though if you read this wiki entry it specifically talks about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet). But then using your distorted view of the bill of rights, we can then use the freedom of the press to justify keeping the speech on the internet free.
f) Yet this is EXACTLY what you are doing, you want to deny other people their freedom of speech, just because you disagree with what they say. Calling someone a bitch does not intrude on their freedom of speech, they can call you a faggot right on back.
Trolling is a lost art. It used to be quite funny. The original sense of the word meant baiting USENET newcomers along with incorrect nonsense. Sort of like how Australians try to trick tourists with lore about "drop bears" or a goofy uncle would go on about snipe hunting or cow tipping. Now it simply means name calling and general offensive behavior, which isn't nearly as clever or fun.
> When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works.
First Amendment:
"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.
Not sure how "intrusive speech" isn't a subset of "speech".
And if something is published here legally, what's the objection to it being "internationally accessible"? Modulo "munitions" (e.g. encryption).
There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many types of speech simply disappear. /b/tards actively inhibit other types of conversation. So freedom of speech can't be axiomatic: it is internally inconsistent.
When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech [edit: though, as pg has pointed out, they intended to include the printed word in their discussion.]. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works. They were not so clairvoyant as to see how powerful small publishing houses and studios could become.
One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech. Everyone should have a place for their voice, but I am unwilling to protect any right to intrude.