Which has primacy?
Freedom of Speech
Autonomy in Commmunication
How do these differ?
What do they comprise of?
What conflicting or intersecting rights exist?
No, I’ve not defined terms. I have definitions in mind, but am also trialing language. The 2nd term is novel and appears not to be in significant use. I’m interested in seeing what others presume the meaning to be.
"Freedom of Speech" seems to me somewhat ambiguous and/or limited. It does not directly seem to address a set of related issues, or puts lines, walls, and doors or other access points in uncomfortable places.
So I did what I try to remember to do when thinking through nutty philosophical concepts, and inverted the notion: what is unfreedom of speech?
That would ... have constraints. Limitations, prohibitions, compulsion, ...
Which suggests that freedom might be thought of as part a larger scope of self-determined information behaviours, or slightly less cumbersomely stated: autonomy in communication.
The phrase seems to have little extant use, outside a small niche in public relations, so confusion should be minimal.
Framed this way, a number of topics related to free speech, but not directly addressed by conventional discussion, seem more clearly in scope: expression, nondisclosure, privacy, association, solitude, access, blocking, translation or conversion, veracity, crytographic methods, repudiation. ...
More on thread here (toot is from a comment):
@dredmorbius @hhardy01 @carcinopithecus @cjd @CaseGage @jaranta
Reading the diaspora post, that's clear and interesting. IMHO "The right to receive, or deny receipt of documents and, signals" is the key difference from freedom of speech, and should be closer to the centre of the argument, because concrete action based on that is more practicable, especially when third parties mentioned but not directly addressed are nevertheless taken as interlocutors.
E.g. even if I'm talking to my 1/
@dredmorbius @hhardy01 @carcinopithecus @cjd @CaseGage @jaranta ... disgusting bigoted friends on our disgusting bigoted medium, if we're talking about some person or group even without their presence or them being aware, so long as the communication is in public, that person or group is counted as an interlocutor in such a conversation, because there's inevitably an outcome for them.
Could be a fragile concept in legal practicality tho. 2/2
I like me some creative but transparent terminology and am trying to come up with something, but it's a tough task.
Fun one: reality show privacy.
Googleable, nerdpleaser: nontimacy.
I feel a regrettable fondness about the latter 🧐
"Kayaalp, I. G. (2050). Face-saving patterns in nontimate conversations on udiddit.com. Discourse & Intercephalic Media, 20th issue, Vol. XXI, pp. 11954--11969."
@CaseGage @hhardy01 @carcinopithecus @cjd @jaranta it was an attempt to come up with a term for https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105561357852602886 so @dredmorbius's prompt is probably the best definition: a discussion [and/or a sitation?] which has the appearance of being closed and private, but is in fact public or observed.
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko