2 ms·

Amazing! Now the right to freedom of expression, as historically understood and instantiated by Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, is

Amazing! Now the right to freedom of expression, as historically understood and instantiated by Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, is now considered a fundamentalist understanding of "free speech". And what exactly is Article 19? "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Clearly, the long, moral arc of the universe eludes you. Yes, those with power did everything within their power to repress and dispossess those utilizing nascent means of communication to spread free inquiry and discussion outside what "respectable" society desired. The end result of that attempt at suppression and repression was the Thirty Years War, the Commonwealth of England, more than eight million dead in Europe, and a safeguard so enduring that within a generation of the aftermath, freedom of the press was established in the United Kingdom--as well as the dissemination of certain, how shall we say, liberal philosophies that led to the draconian view that freedom of speech is fundamental to an open society and must be purchased by eternal vigilance against those that would take it away. As previously noted: different times, different costumes.

bonaldi 8y ago
The United Kingdom is a strange place for you to pick as your model of laws protecting free press. And, as seems to be eluding you, we're talking about Spotify here. I don't believe Article 19 is intended to cover them. It'd be a - yes! - fundamentalist reading for sure that read "any media" as meaning Spotify had to carry InfoWars. As for your "eternal vigilance", Popper already has you there. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. And I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Well, sort-of sure.
- froasty 8y ago
  And, of course, you resort to picking out Spotify as if in a vacuum. But it's not in a vacuum! Alex Jones was de-platformed on from a communication medium with 2 billion monthly users! A platform that, in 2013, 50% of Americans check every day, with 80% using it as their only social media presence! Facebook is literally the most public forum that has ever existed in the history of mankind! And this is just yet another miniature step--always justified--towards "preserving" democratic ideals by thoroughly undermining them through overreach. And once again, you seem to quote from totems that you've never read and don't actually understand. To wit, Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
  - bonaldi 8y ago
    "Resort to picking out Spotify" in a thread about Spotify? If you want to talk about Facebook we can - but it still won't be the same thing as talking about state censorship. As for Popper, this is getting tedious now. Yes, that's what he said. Yes, I've read it. I agree with him. You've banged on at length that any restriction at all on any publication anywhere is tantamount to the Inquisition. Popper disagrees with you. Most of Western Europe disagrees with you. Busterarm and the alt-right agree with you. Enjoy debating with them.

bonaldi 8y ago

The United Kingdom is a strange place for you to pick as your model of laws protecting free press. And, as seems to be eluding you, we're talking about Spotify here. I don't believe Article 19 is intended to cover them. It'd be a - yes! - fundamentalist reading for sure that read "any media" as meaning Spotify had to carry InfoWars. As for your "eternal vigilance", Popper already has you there. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. And I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Well, sort-of sure.

froasty 8y ago
And, of course, you resort to picking out Spotify as if in a vacuum. But it's not in a vacuum! Alex Jones was de-platformed on from a communication medium with 2 billion monthly users! A platform that, in 2013, 50% of Americans check every day, with 80% using it as their only social media presence! Facebook is literally the most public forum that has ever existed in the history of mankind! And this is just yet another miniature step--always justified--towards "preserving" democratic ideals by thoroughly undermining them through overreach. And once again, you seem to quote from totems that you've never read and don't actually understand. To wit, Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
- bonaldi 8y ago
  "Resort to picking out Spotify" in a thread about Spotify? If you want to talk about Facebook we can - but it still won't be the same thing as talking about state censorship. As for Popper, this is getting tedious now. Yes, that's what he said. Yes, I've read it. I agree with him. You've banged on at length that any restriction at all on any publication anywhere is tantamount to the Inquisition. Popper disagrees with you. Most of Western Europe disagrees with you. Busterarm and the alt-right agree with you. Enjoy debating with them.