Amentep

Don't bypass the swear filter.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that every space public or private should be a platform for free speech. This seems extremely broad to me. This will be a bit silly, but if interpreted literally and en extremis, it would mean the individual would have no right to get someone out of their yard yelling their political beliefs at you regardless of the time of day or night. That abortion protestors could set up photographs and hold speeches in a local diner while the individual was trying to have a quiet night out eating a dinner. That a company could lie in advertising because that was their "free speech" and to not let them lie is to abridge the free speech to the company and the individual serving as spokesperson. That a religious groups could try to convert an individual while they tried to watch a local theater play. That TV's and radios couldn't be turned off less the individual inadvertently silence someone's free speech by changing channels or turning it off. In essence I think the kind of free speech that is never impeded by government, companies, or individuals comes with a lot of problems and little benefit. As mentioned, in our historical examples of corporate self-censorship (Hays Code, Comics Code) there were created other distribution models for things that existed outside those codes for those who chose to seek them out because that's what they wanted. The example that gets trotted out a lot regarding censorship these days are the social media companies, but there is nothing preventing distribution of ideas through other platforms (even if those platforms have to be created) if Twitter or Facebook block something. As I said before the right to free speech does not, as I see it, also come with a right to an audience.

Because Free Speech as enshrined in the US Constitution is specifically addressed to the actions of the government. Private individuals (and companies) have been free to censor themselves/for themselves or for their product, and we've seen them with things like the Motion Picture Production Code or the Comics Code Authority on large scale before. Neither prevented things violating the respective codes from being made or distributed, even if the distribution networks were limited or private.

AHHH, that BLM. I could not understand what I was saying. EDIT also what you were saying. Most Universities have Free Speech zones to prevent people from running shouting through the classrooms. But they're not perfect, and have a lot of problems.

But, again, the situation you are commenting on didn't involve anyone in an empty room, metaphorically. CNN and Fox continued to carry the speech to my knowledge, so it was available if anyone wanted to hear it. The broadcast networks pulled away, yes, but they're not obligated to provide a free speech platform as they're not a part of the government. Also, IMO, tying a requirement for someone to listen to free speech has issues. I certainly want to be able to walk past the guy on the soapbox in the park shouting his thoughts at passersby, even if I support his ability to do same. Er...????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I could agree with an argument of media bias that might be worth looking at, but not Freedom of Speech (with the caveat, perhaps, that no news will be able to cover everything, and given the commercial model, broadcast networks are going to have an incentive to not dusrupt programming schedules without ratings-drawing breaking news to keep advertisers happy).

We don't want the vote to represent the people who voted?

So your definition of Free Speech is that the government will protect your right to speak your mind, but your complaint was... ...in which no one prevented Trump giving a speech to speak his mind. Or are you saying that Freedom of Speech comes with a requirement to listen to Free Speech?

I already dread the political ads...

Yeah, dunno.

Isn't the cyanide in the seeds rather than the apple flesh?

If you abstain, is it a protest against the system, or laziness? At least if you write in some rando you've recorded your disatisfaction.

A vote for a random someone (or a fictional character) can be read in a lot of ways, so there's still meaning there regardless of the inability to 'win'. I think there's a history with celebrities (even when they didn't officially announce) garnering votes. But there's no way to distinguish an uncast vote. Was it uncast because no candidate was liked or the voter couldn't be bothered? Who can say?

Are there really people who think that consoles would make PCs obsolete (excluding PC gamers who don't understand why anyone would use a console so ascribe that motive to console gamers)?

This bugs me as well; I've never been fond of the attitude that you're trying to pick a winner, like we're all betting on a horse race rather than electing representatives to act on our collective behalf within the government. The only wasted vote is the one not cast.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-54780460 Algorithm spots 'Covid cough' inaudible to humans

I have a mea culpa. A few months ago I blamed the 80s Star Trek for changing Vulcans to make them humans with control issues. Turns out its actually an episode of The Animated series, "Yesteryear", where its explicitly stated all Vulcans train to suppress their emotions for sociological reasons. Been awhile since I'd seen TAS, and had forgotten this point. Still think it was a bad move for Vulcans in ST as it seems to have made loosing control the only story you can tell with them (something originally unique to Spock), but I can't blame Sybok and TNG's portrayal of Sarek any longer. Meanwhile, just got into the Ro Lauren story on TNG.

So your answer is to give de facto control to the "small group of intolerant and ignorant extremists"?

Do you have freedom of speech if you are afraid to exercise same?

And a couple of teasers:

"What can change the nature of a dust mote?" - Ravel Puzzlewell, first draft of PST.

Well they're not hood ornaments, either... (iirc the etymology of sausage is from the curing process using salt, so an argument could be made that it shouldn't be called a sausage if its not salt cured)