Comment by themaninthedark
1 year ago
I thought the argument by those for censorship was in this order:
1. You have no right to hate speak. 2. Companies don't have to give you a platform. 3. It's not censorship unless the government is doing it! 4. Muh freez peach
I guess we are now trying to walk back our previous declarations by saying that "Free Speech" and "Absolute Free Speech" are distinct things.
How about instead we learn that if we censor and silence critics that the same tactics will be used by the other side, and a civilized society this does not make.
> 1. You have no right to hate speak.
you have the right to hate speak. Hate speak all you like!
>2. Companies don't have to give you a platform.
they dont!
> 3. It's not censorship unless the government is doing it!
you can use the word "censorship" anywhere, it's just if you are going to claim First Amendment rights, then only the government is involved there.
> How about instead we learn that if we censor and silence critics that the same tactics will be used by the other side, and a civilized society this does not make.
Re: hate speech, Popper would disagree with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I thought absolutist freeze peach meant “anyone can say anything without consequence” except for
Muslims
LGBTQ
People with alternate personas reading books to children
Teachers
Academics
Scientists
I mean. If we’re going to play a game of “who consistently applies their belief”, you’re not going to win.
In order for me to lose this game, I would have to be opposed to the speech of the above groups that you just listed.
I am all for their speech as well as speech by anti-vaxers, alt-right, conservative christians.
The problem is that we have many here that don't want to accept that the opposite of speech is not silence but is in fact more speech.
I would also not call myself a "free speech absolutist", I believe there should be no restrictions on the discussion of ideas but would be against the ability of anyone being able to slander and libel others.
I quite honestly think that our slander and libel laws are too permissive. If I were to take your picture and publish it on social media with an accusation, that would make you a "public person" who then has no recourse to any damage that I have caused.