The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

So already you can read up on those people and their phylosophies to get a better idea of the concepts behind freedom of speech.

Similarly, about 200 ideas were proposed by the various states to be included in it, and Madison selected 10 from those ideas. It can be interesting to see the ones that weren't selected. And there were influenced from states bill of rights, the English bill of rights and the Magna Carta as well.

For Freedom of Speech I found:

> He studied at Princeton where a great focus was placed on speech and debate. He also studied the Greeks, who are known for valuing freedom of speech, too—that was the premise of Socrates' and/or Plato's work.

This was his first draft for it:

> The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

Various dictionaries say:

> Free speech means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government

> Free press means the right of individuals to express themselves through publication and dissemination of information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government.

And there was a legislative case where Madison argued against the narrower interpretation from common law of what is considered speech. So at least we believe it includes a broader set of speech then that.

The main issue that's unclear, and might have been unclear on purpose, is that the constitution says: "the freedom of speech" emphasise on "the". The presence of the "the" article suggests it refers to the existing freedom of speech that existed at the time. And debates about how wide or narrow was that at that time still linger.

Increasing education resources doesn't have to have an end goal of reeducation camps.

Education is woefully underfunded in America, especially rural America.

Starting with giving people access to the same level of education across the board is a good first step in increasing critical thinking.

Not everything has to be torn down into authoritarian versus a free for all. There are lots of shades of grey in between.

You can read whatever you want into the implications of the rule articulated in the case. Folks on the other side can say that, if the decision had gone the other way, nothing would stop the government from regulating how the New York Times uses its corporate funds.

But it’s important to look at the actual case, legally because it is really the only thing that’s decided, but practically because it is an actual conduct the government decided to prosecute. The government didn’t think the law just covers billion dollar advocacy campaigns. It prosecuted a small non-profit entity for publishing a movie. It’s not a “parade of horribles” hypothetical consequence, it actually happened. The “alternative” would be allowing the government to prosecute this non-profit for publishing a political movie.

The world is a smaller place than you think. You could get on a plane and be in one of those re-education camps tomorrow if allowed foreigners in it. It's a real thing that is happening now. In the name of education. Because those people are expressing beliefs that the authorities don't condone.

Rural America is where people who have different beliefs from you are. Which is really what this is about. Otherwise you would have included all of the urban and suburban education underfunding.

I'm not sure why you keep jumping to authoritative straw man arguments. Please at least try and argue in good faith and read what I'm writing.