Ben Finney wrote:
> Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rick Johnson
>> <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > That's the beauty of free speech: "We have right to be annoyed, and
>> > the author has the right not to give a damn". The only alternative
>> > is fascist censorship, and I'll happily endure these annoyances to
>> > prevent that!
>>
>> Free speech also gives the freedom to not listen.
>
> Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state to not quash
> anyone's expression. It does not affect anyone who is not the state; it
> imposes no obligation on the PSF.
By this reasoning, you would be perfectly comfortable with a state of
affairs where a media monopoly suppressed any and all dissenting
viewpoints, provided that it was a *privately owned* monopoly and not the
government. To quote Bill Cole:
Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to
government censorship that we insist on having unaccountable
private parties to do it instead.
Since I am pretty sure that you don't actually consider private censorship
to be a good thing, perhaps we can agree that the question of free speech
is a little more complicated than just the state versus non-state.
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
