4 ms·

Strictly true in the context of "first amendment". But what I've realised recently is that "free speech" is more than just a legal right conferred by the gover

by gydfi 10y ago

Strictly true in the context of "first amendment". But what I've realised recently is that "free speech" is more than just a legal right conferred by the government, it's a social climate. The climate of free speech is even more important than the government right, because if the climate is lost then people will start demanding that the government abolish the legal right too. A social climate of free speech means a society in which people are accustomed to hearing things they find disagreeable, and don't flip out every time they do. It means that although people hypothetically can punish each other for views they find disagreeable by means such as boycotting their businesses or shouting at them when they try to speak, they manage to refrain from doing so in all but the most egregious half a percent of cases, and generally tolerate disagreement. This is what we're in danger of losing at the moment, and if this is lost then the legal right can't be far behind.

vacri 10y ago
If that's the argument, then I still say "fuck Adams". He's defending someone for whom there's multiple video evidence of him stomping on people's rights to speak freely and ask questions. Yesterday someone showed me a video of a man being removed from the room for asking a question. And looking over Adams' backlog, he's faking news: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-and-the-other-countries http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-an... > "I don't know what was in those phone calls, but Australia and Mexico were lecturing Trump, and Trump let them know who was king, booyah!". Actually, no. The Australian PM went to Trump cap-in-hand, asking him to maintain an existing bargain. He couldn't afford to get Trump offside because the call was about a very explosive issue back home, and the existing bargain was his 'out' from it. He was pilloried here at home because he didn't stand up to Trump when the content of the call was made public. But no, Adams just makes shit up and decides "fuck those guys", defending a demagogue who does the same. Free speech does not include a right to lie about others (see libel/slander). The climate of erosion of free speech is not most threatened by Twitter, it's the current US administration and their fact-blind supporters like Adams that's the real risk.

by gydfi 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

If that's the argument, then I still say "fuck Adams". He's defending someone for whom there's multiple video evidence of him stomping on people's rights to speak freely and ask questions. Yesterday someone showed me a video of a man being removed from the room for asking a question. And looking over Adams' backlog, he's faking news: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-and-the-other-countries http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-an... > "I don't know what was in those phone calls, but Australia and Mexico were lecturing Trump, and Trump let them know who was king, booyah!". Actually, no. The Australian PM went to Trump cap-in-hand, asking him to maintain an existing bargain. He couldn't afford to get Trump offside because the call was about a very explosive issue back home, and the existing bargain was his 'out' from it. He was pilloried here at home because he didn't stand up to Trump when the content of the call was made public. But no, Adams just makes shit up and decides "fuck those guys", defending a demagogue who does the same. Free speech does not include a right to lie about others (see libel/slander). The climate of erosion of free speech is not most threatened by Twitter, it's the current US administration and their fact-blind supporters like Adams that's the real risk.