Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?

And the right to post a youtube video ?

The distinction between 'rights' and 'legal rights'. And how people appeal to them (rightly, wrongly and even stupidly)

Something most people obviously understand until they need to troll.

How are non-legal rights enforced? Be specific please.

Chez, I asked my buddy from the UK and he’s never heard of people there talking about their “1st Amendment rights.” He also said you sound a bit dim.

It's a red herring but specifically in this case I'd assume by social media platforms controlling the content on it's platform. Sometimes in addition there are legal rights (usually -ve ones) enforced by the regulator/etc

Let me clarify the question.

1. What is the "non-legal right"?
2. What are your possible remedies when you are deprived of it?

Your buddy obviously has the traditional British penchant for understatement.

you sound dim if you genuinely got taken in by d2's post.

You had it right about what i said the first time although I assume you now realise you were wrong about 'rights' and so have now gone down the silly path

I think I might start a petition to get chez deported. If I get 100k signatures they'll debate it in parliament. Should be a walk in the park, I'll just link it to this forum.

I dont think you have the right to start a petition that qualifies for the 100k debate rule

but you have the right to try if you want. Maybe lead with the 'probably welsh' thingy?

Well, I'd have to - that's where I am proposing to deport you.

As long as it's not Cardiff. Never found any decent brains there and we looked very hard.

Philosophers often distinguish between legal rights and moral rights (sometimes called natural rights). If you believe in a god, a possible remedy when you are deprived of a non-legal right is that the perpetrator burns in hell. If you believe in some form of karma and reincarnation - you might get squished in a future life. Sometimes the remedy might be weak - eg social ostracism and shaming against those who deprive others of their rights. You might believe that sometimes there is no remedy, but that it is still wrong to deprive people of their rights.

The word "right" to me implies that there is a legal remedy if it is infringed, but I can see from your link that it has a broader meaning. However, it seems that many are using the two distinct meanings interchangeably in debate.

The second Amendment remedy mainly.

Basically you have a moral right (there's that word) to do what needs to be done regardless of any law or the opinion of others.
It often doesn't end well but history is full of examples. (Thinking of Mel Gibson ofc)

Chez is only one guy. And someone told me he was Welsh.

and we generally understand a lot more by not assuming the stupider meaning even though it's a much loved approach by trolls.

Chez, maybe you should try laying back in the cut more. Like ODB.

Chez,

The bolded may well be what he meant.

But his actual words were similar to what idiots often say when they talk the First Amendment. Specifically, he conflated or failed to distinguish between the natural human desire to say whatever you want wherever you want and the actual rights afforded by the First Amendment.

I dont doubt lots of people say stupid stuff and also conflate things a lot but the automatic default to dismissing what people mean comes up all the time and particularly whenever we discuss free speech. You may ask yourself how this can be the case when the non legal use is so common.

I'd rather not let the fact that idiots use similar words/expressions to everybody else dictate the discussion. Others may disagree for political reasons - I have n expression for that approach that I will avoid on this occasions.

It’s about misinformation right ?
So I guess you think lying is a fundamental needs on the right ?

Regardless , it’s about Twitter , A private company right ?
Isn’t the purpose of the right to have less influence of government politics in private affairs and business ?
So why complain ?
Now u want government intervention in matter of private business because it do not accept your narrative ?

Itt so called progressives going to bat for billion dollar company's right to restrict speech.

Fwiw , I don’t see why lying should be more left than right or vice versa .
Is knowingly lying can be defended as free speech ?
I got no opinion on this yet .
About you ?

The Left isn't taking anybody anywhere. The last thing the Left did was make Democrat candidates for office bend on one knee to the idea that people should have medical care for their tax money. That turned out to be purely symbolic of course. The Left prefer twitter be turned into a public utility and be subject to the 1st amendment.

Large corporations are at the wheel. While they might seem Leftist because they have taken the more profitable stance in the culture war, they want private power without regulation aka the Republican political philosophy. Twitter's freedom to censor is what you say you want if you say you want private unregulated corporations doing whatever they want. That's what you want, right? You don't want the government sticking it's nose in between corporations and their marks? This is what you get. You are getting what you wanted.

As a conservative I think it’s a good thing for billionaires to own the public square and decide what speech is acceptable. It’s good to see the libtards finally get on board with this.