Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Government Is Still the Biggest Threat to Free Speech" video.

  1. Well that makes no sense whatsoever. There's literally no logical connection between the two clauses in your sentence.
    3
  2. The Bill of Rights never guaranteed a particular platform. And you know the founders were simply human right? In some cases, pretty flawed and shitty humans. Not infallible gods.
    2
  3.  @seanoleary4374  Technology is a fantastic tool for improving social connection and improving quality of life. It's also a means that idiots and bullies can find each other, governments can control the population, and companies can control our lives. You have to be mindful of the negatives. The world has more tools for education than ever before but it's a double edged sword you're right. I wouldn't be without technology, but it definitely has its downsides.
    2
  4.  @Nothing2CHere4U  Ha ha ha. Nice try, but I prefer to set my own standards rather than follow made up characters in fantasy books and whose father/himself vindictively and psychopathically murdered millions of people. Not my idea of a role model cheers.
    1
  5.  @remyllebeau77  "They couldn't guarantee access to something that did not exist yet." Wrong. Private property existed. Freedom of speech, as enunciated in the constitution didn't give you the right to simply go to any location, including private property and exercise your right to speak. It was freedom of SPEECH, not VENUE. "But if these social media sites are the modern equivalent of the public square," well that is a debate worth having. I would argue that they should be viewed as such BUT there are plenty of legitimate reasons for not viewing them that way, not least the fact that every government in the world holds them liable for the comments of their users, turning them into publishers. I am not comfortable with THAT but again, there are reasonable reasons for doing so. "Gov't property and schools are already beyond error into criminality." Again, freedom of speech, not venue. Even where you are free to speak, you are not free to do so any time it suits you. Just try going to a town meeting and constantly talking over the other speakers. I think you have an overly broad understanding of the term "freedom of speech"
    1
  6.  @VolkColopatrion  "yet the word and principles are perfect" I'm not sure that I agree with that. There's no such thing as a "natural right." A "right" is something granted by another human. You have only the rights that you are willing to fight for one way or another.
    1
  7.  @Nothing2CHere4U  There's no such thing as a "natural right" - it's just a philosophical fabrication, and almost certainly culturally derived. Ask people in North Korea if free speech is a natural right to them. Speech is a tool and often a weapon that can be used to bring harm to others. As such, there should ALWAYS be external moderators on the limits of use of that weapon. What you call tyranny, I would call protections. I don't WANT a demagogue like Trump free to foment hatred against Asians or Mexicans or blacks. Discussions about race are one thing; incetement against them are quite another. " Freedom of Speech is knowing you are Free to say whatever you choose to, whenever and wherever you choose to." And that is why it does not, nor ever will exist. Yes, you can flap your lips in proscribed public places, or in permitted private venues, but the kind of freedom you envision is a fantasy. "Speech is only feared by the guilty." complete and utter rubbish. Honestly, you do spout some nonsense. Were the Jews guilty when Hitler used his oratory talents to win power then used that power to murder them by the million? Were the Asians guilty when Trump constantly denigrated them, calling corona "Kung Flu?" What about when speech is used against people who are powerless to even reply, far less to fight back? What about all the people falsely accused of crimes, many of whom were killed for it?
    1
  8.  @Nothing2CHere4U  Declaring a thing does not make it so. "only use of force (tyranny)" Use of force is not tyranny. Jeez, quit with the overly broad hyperbole would you? If somebody attacks me adnd I fight back, and I a tyrant? If you try to steal from my grandmother and I physically prevent you am I a tyrant? "You have done nothing to disprove my natural rights." Nor do I have to. The obligation is on the one making the POSITIVE claim to PROVE it, not the other way around. You have taken a term derived from Greek philosophy which described a way of VIEWING rights. The fact that someone came up with a term does not define it into existence any more than "frog privilege" makes that a thing. It is nothing more than a term used to describe a concept, not a description of reality. ""Culturally Derived" suggests you perceive a hierarchy of cultures, where certain rights DO exist among certain peoples" It does no such thing. "Culturally derived" merely suggests that rights themself are a cultural fabrication not a cosmic truism. It certainly acknowledges no culture-independent "natural right", which would transcend all cultures as you claim. It says nothing about the relative hierarchy of cultures nor the the truth of any such concept. For instance, Indians believe that cows are sacred. Does that make them so? Of course not. It is a local cultural belief, not a cosmic truth. At this stage, you're starting to sound like a Christian talking about "objective morality." I would say that your arguments are no more compelling but I don't think you've even made any have you? There is a PERFECTLY good reason why most cultures recognise the broad concept of "freedom of speech" as desirable, and it's for exactly the same reason that EVERY culture places limitations upon that freedom - namely that the exchange of ideas is powerful, but can also be tremendously harmful. It has NOTHING to do with evolution unless you're referring to evolutionary psycology, in which case, I grant you, there may be an element of truth to your supposition.
    1
  9.  @Nothing2CHere4U  Oh you total cretin. Project much? I should have known better than to believe that you had anything intelligent to say. You f**king coward.
    1
  10.  @seanoleary4374  That's... a unique and completely misguided argument. If I stand in the middle of my living room, point a camera at myself, and broadcast me threatening someone, do you seriously think nobody can hold my threats against me because I'm on private property? Facebook is privately owned. Like all private companies, it has to obey a limited set of legal requirements, but the obligation to provide a speech platform to any specific individual is not one of them.
    1
  11.  @seanoleary4374  It's a complicated situation with lots of good arguments for both sides, and it doesn't lend itself to absolutists on either position. I agree with your desire to see freedom of speech nurtured, but there are, and always have been many, many justified restrictions even in America, where it has its most generous interpretation.
    1