> The point is we're always a bit selective about what counts as free speech that a principle should be applied differently in different situations is the very

> The point is we're always a bit selective about what counts as free speech that a principle should be applied differently in different situations is the very the definition of wisdom reaching back to dawn of philosophy, (which by no coincidence was also the dawn of democracy) > [article] seem[s] to be unnecessarily abstract if wrapping up discrete facets of discourse into a concrete, higher order order concept of discourse, and then reasoning about how discourse regarding discourse is affected in different ways is too difficult to bear, there's always a doctrine out there looking for adherents > just have the debate we are; we are discussing how (1) anti speech doctrines have motivated violence, and (2) how doctrinally motivated violence has affected free speech; free speech, moreover, as (i) a crucial element of social justice, and (ii) a reflexively open principle, or constitution, which founds modern society don't reduce thinking about these matters to a referendum > or whatever no, finish your thought. maybe: "or whatever people pretend to care about" and you clearly can't be bothered by > [we don't] really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway the fact that we have upheld the term "free speech" despite its many forms is our collective recognition of the usefulness of the idea, the pervasiveness of its application, and our consistent concern over its worth, or fate