Random ALL CAPS posts on this group

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>> 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.

It's definitely not "state vs non-state". Freedom of expression should
allow me to say anything I like in my own home, but it doesn't
guarantee that I can walk into someone else's place of business and
start insulting the customers. Or, more strictly, he has the right to
throw me out, and I can't hide behind "freedom of speech" as a right
to say whatever I like.

But he has that right because I'm in his place of business. I'm fully
allowed to leave, and say my piece somewhere else. It's even more
obvious when he has to expend resources to allow my voice to be heard;
not every letter to the editor will be published in the newspaper, for
instance, and nobody would expect them all to be. Yes, the newspaper
is quite possibly biased in its selection of which to print; that's
just something you have to accept.

ChrisA