Aspie96 on Nostr: > I believe those people are predators and psychopaths. But that's not the same as ...
> I believe those people are predators and psychopaths.
But that's not the same as being ignorant, is it?
In any case, what's there to complain about obviously depends on the jurisdiction.
In the US, you have software patents, which restrict expression through code. Code is considered a kind of literary expression, so that it can be restricted through copyright, yet, unlike other kinds of literature, it is also restricted through patents. Patents, unlike copyright, restrict ideas, regardless of how they are expressed, and even "protect" from independent creation.
If code is literature, then it should be protected speech, but it's not. The US also used to include encryption software in the ammunition list and it is still regulated to some extent.
The "free speech flag", a symbol of freedom of speech, was made in the US, as a response to attempts of censorship through DRM law.
There is also the fact that obscenity (according to the Miller test) is deemed unprotected and can be restricted, in principle beyond the extent needed to protect children and unwilling viewers.
In the European Union, it will vary by country. In Italy we have blasphemy laws. I don't think it is necessary, at all.
In other countries, especially those which aren't democracies, there are all kinds of unacceptable restrictions.
The law is also not the only obstacle through freedom of speech, of course. There are violations of the right to free speech by governmental entities (including in the US), as well as non-governmental entities.
There are also many scenarios where nobody is technically infringing upon the right, but people lack access to it, or it is in some way stifled.
This is what corporate censorship on social media platform leads to, as well as corporations firing people for their speech, even outside of their job, although, depending on one's jurisdiction, neither might be a technical violation of anyone's legal rights.
But that's not the same as being ignorant, is it?
In any case, what's there to complain about obviously depends on the jurisdiction.
In the US, you have software patents, which restrict expression through code. Code is considered a kind of literary expression, so that it can be restricted through copyright, yet, unlike other kinds of literature, it is also restricted through patents. Patents, unlike copyright, restrict ideas, regardless of how they are expressed, and even "protect" from independent creation.
If code is literature, then it should be protected speech, but it's not. The US also used to include encryption software in the ammunition list and it is still regulated to some extent.
The "free speech flag", a symbol of freedom of speech, was made in the US, as a response to attempts of censorship through DRM law.
There is also the fact that obscenity (according to the Miller test) is deemed unprotected and can be restricted, in principle beyond the extent needed to protect children and unwilling viewers.
In the European Union, it will vary by country. In Italy we have blasphemy laws. I don't think it is necessary, at all.
In other countries, especially those which aren't democracies, there are all kinds of unacceptable restrictions.
The law is also not the only obstacle through freedom of speech, of course. There are violations of the right to free speech by governmental entities (including in the US), as well as non-governmental entities.
There are also many scenarios where nobody is technically infringing upon the right, but people lack access to it, or it is in some way stifled.
This is what corporate censorship on social media platform leads to, as well as corporations firing people for their speech, even outside of their job, although, depending on one's jurisdiction, neither might be a technical violation of anyone's legal rights.