5 Comments

a good definition of "freedom of speech" is,

"when two people who want to speak to each other can speak to each other without interference"

of course,

my favorite is "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT SPEECH YOU DISAGREE WITH, YOU DON'T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH"

but to address your "free speech=free reach"

i think the key point here is that everyone should be subject to the exact same rules

and those rules should be transparent

Expand full comment

I love your definition of freedom of speech --- WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. This has become the trade-off people have mostly unknowingly made by moving most of societal discourse to an electronic grid - theres always something in the way. However, without it, I wouldn't get to read comments like this and share thoughts with ppl from all over the place, so it has its up sides for sure. And yes, I think the rules should be transparent AF, and if we could remove the tyrannical agenda out of it that would be greaaaaaat lol we shall see!

Expand full comment

perhaps a cultural shift is brewing where people start to understand they don't need to silence anything they disagree with

Expand full comment

perhaps!! i haven't seen it from the ones that seem to be the most addicted to doing it, but you never know. its certainly in order i'll say that much

Expand full comment

I don’t know what to say, but I think I am with you 100%.

Expand full comment