> you have no expectation of freedom of speech or expression in either of those scenarios
One, this is obviously debated.
Two, expectations don’t define rights. I have no expectation of freedom of political expression in North Korea.
> it's not technically correct
It absolutely is. If you’re over at my house and I tell you to stop talking about something, that’s curtailing your free speech. Freedom of speech is a millennias-old concept. So is freedom of assembly. The latter restricts the former, fundamentally, as it implies a right not to listen.
What constitutes a freedom per se is separate from the “inalienable” right. That “natural” right, in turn, is different from the legal right.
> That's just talking. Freedom of speech is a different thing
It’s really not. Our modern conception of freedom of speech derives from English Parliamentary privileges. (See Coke and Erasmus.)
Those, in turn, derived from Athenian democratic principles, where “just talking” was the system of government. In the most technical of senses, you are incorrect on what freedom of speech and the right to free speech mean. (Which are, again, distinct from both one another and legal protections of free speech, including the First Amendment.)
One, this is obviously debated.
Two, expectations don’t define rights. I have no expectation of freedom of political expression in North Korea.
> it's not technically correct
It absolutely is. If you’re over at my house and I tell you to stop talking about something, that’s curtailing your free speech. Freedom of speech is a millennias-old concept. So is freedom of assembly. The latter restricts the former, fundamentally, as it implies a right not to listen.
What constitutes a freedom per se is separate from the “inalienable” right. That “natural” right, in turn, is different from the legal right.