4 ms·

I know exactly what you mean, destruction of free speech because you find certain speech intolerable despite it being nothing more than speech. You want though

I know exactly what you mean, destruction of free speech because you find certain speech intolerable despite it being nothing more than speech. You want thought-crime. I think you know how insane a view this is, which is why you cannot simply come out in favor of it but must beat around the bush and ask vague questions trying to entice someone else to say it. At least Richard Spencer is willing to publicly stand behind his words. You would rather hide.

anigbrowl 8y ago
I've made it abundantly clear, in this thread and going back years, that I consider free speech to have limits. Speech acts have consequences both in law and everyday life, and to pretend otherwise is facile. Incitement to violence against the innocent is one of those. It is you who has kept ducking plain questions and pretending not to understand them. Just so there isn't any ambiguity, I find your excuse-making on behalf of incitements to engage in rape, enslavement, and massacre contemptible.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  > I've made it abundantly clear, in this thread and going back years, that I consider free speech to have limits. Speech acts have consequences both in law and everyday life, and to pretend otherwise is facile. Incitement to violence against the innocent is one of those. There is a clear legal line between genuine incitement and protected speech. This is my point of contention. If it is illegal, let the authorities require its removal. > It is you who has kept ducking plain questions and pretending not to understand them. Because you are using rhetorical questions to attempt to paint me as some type of monster who supports horrific crime because I want due process of law. > Just so there isn't any ambiguity, I find your excuse-making on behalf of incitements to engage in rape, enslavement, and massacre contemptible. I am not making excuses for crimes. I am suggesting we follow the due process of law before silencing speech. I find your attempts to silence speech you disagree with a horrific path to fascism. Now let us agree to disagree.

anigbrowl 8y ago

I've made it abundantly clear, in this thread and going back years, that I consider free speech to have limits. Speech acts have consequences both in law and everyday life, and to pretend otherwise is facile. Incitement to violence against the innocent is one of those. It is you who has kept ducking plain questions and pretending not to understand them. Just so there isn't any ambiguity, I find your excuse-making on behalf of incitements to engage in rape, enslavement, and massacre contemptible.

mieseratte 8y ago
> I've made it abundantly clear, in this thread and going back years, that I consider free speech to have limits. Speech acts have consequences both in law and everyday life, and to pretend otherwise is facile. Incitement to violence against the innocent is one of those. There is a clear legal line between genuine incitement and protected speech. This is my point of contention. If it is illegal, let the authorities require its removal. > It is you who has kept ducking plain questions and pretending not to understand them. Because you are using rhetorical questions to attempt to paint me as some type of monster who supports horrific crime because I want due process of law. > Just so there isn't any ambiguity, I find your excuse-making on behalf of incitements to engage in rape, enslavement, and massacre contemptible. I am not making excuses for crimes. I am suggesting we follow the due process of law before silencing speech. I find your attempts to silence speech you disagree with a horrific path to fascism. Now let us agree to disagree.