6 ms·

"Freedom to speak" Does not imply: "Freedom to use power to silence other people arbitrarily". In fact it implies the opposite: "Responsibility to uphold sp

"Freedom to speak" Does not imply: "Freedom to use power to silence other people arbitrarily". In fact it implies the opposite: "Responsibility to uphold speech even if you disagree with it."

Barrin92 8y ago
Freedom of speech does by no means entail that anybody has to a) listen to your speech, b) host you on their platform or do business with you.
- jlawson 8y ago
  It doesn't imply A), but it does imply B) to some degree. To believe a right exists means to believe it should be upheld, which means you should uphold it.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    OK. So make a list for me of causes and ideas you hate the most. I'll arrange for you to tithe in support of organizations promoting those causes. I'll also arrange for someone to show up at your home, every day, and deliver a one-hour lecture on the ideas you dislike. I'm sure you'll do this because, after all, you believe in free speech and you believe you must "uphold" it by requiring people to support ideas with which they disagree, Yes?
    - jlawson 8y ago
      There's an obvious difference between actively supporting ideas with which you disagree (e.g by donating money), and simply not using power to silence those ideas. You seem to think that your response to any possible political idea MUST be either to donate to it, or use all possible power to attack and silence it. It's obviously a ridiculous false dichotomy. It is possible just to live and let live.
      - ubernostrum 8y ago
        You've declared, quite clearly, that you think the following things are equivalent: 1. Not actively providing resources to a position you dislike 2. "Using your power to silence" positions you dislike I know you've said these are equivalent, because you're arguing that certain people owe other people a platform and associated services (1), and you've used the language of (2) to shame them for not doing it. The only thing left to do at this point is ask if you're willing to practice what you preach.
        jlawson 8y ago
        More absurd false equivalence. Simply treating a customer the same as other customers is not equivalent to actively providing resources to a political cause. And yes, payment processors do owe it to customers to treat them equally with regards to their politics and beliefs (as well as their race, gender, language, and so on). You seem to want to live in a world where wrongthinkers are viciously persecuted by every person, every business, everyone in every possible way. Because you think you'll always be in the team with the power to do that. When you have the experience of being the hated minority, you'll understand the value of equal treatment and the norms of individual freedom.
        ubernostrum 8y ago
        When you have the experience of being the hated minority Politicians of explicitly right-wing alignment control: * The US Presidency * The US Senate * The US House of Representatives * 33/50 US governorships * Legislatures of 26/50 US states and are about to install a conservative-leaning majority into the US Supreme Court. Rosa Parks you ain't, bud.
x0x0 8y ago
Choosing not to do business with someone is not silencing them.
- jlawson 8y ago
  Of course it is, if you've got a monopoly or duopoly and that someone has no realistic alternatives. You're right it's not silencing if there are many alternatives, e.g. if someone wanted to buy a wedding cake.

"Freedom to speak" Does not imply: "Freedom to use power to silence other people arbitrarily". In fact it implies the opposite: "Responsibility to uphold speech even if you disagree with it."

Barrin92 8y ago

Freedom of speech does by no means entail that anybody has to a) listen to your speech, b) host you on their platform or do business with you.

jlawson 8y ago
It doesn't imply A), but it does imply B) to some degree. To believe a right exists means to believe it should be upheld, which means you should uphold it.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  OK. So make a list for me of causes and ideas you hate the most. I'll arrange for you to tithe in support of organizations promoting those causes. I'll also arrange for someone to show up at your home, every day, and deliver a one-hour lecture on the ideas you dislike. I'm sure you'll do this because, after all, you believe in free speech and you believe you must "uphold" it by requiring people to support ideas with which they disagree, Yes?
  - jlawson 8y ago
    There's an obvious difference between actively supporting ideas with which you disagree (e.g by donating money), and simply not using power to silence those ideas. You seem to think that your response to any possible political idea MUST be either to donate to it, or use all possible power to attack and silence it. It's obviously a ridiculous false dichotomy. It is possible just to live and let live.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      You've declared, quite clearly, that you think the following things are equivalent: 1. Not actively providing resources to a position you dislike 2. "Using your power to silence" positions you dislike I know you've said these are equivalent, because you're arguing that certain people owe other people a platform and associated services (1), and you've used the language of (2) to shame them for not doing it. The only thing left to do at this point is ask if you're willing to practice what you preach.
      - jlawson 8y ago
        More absurd false equivalence. Simply treating a customer the same as other customers is not equivalent to actively providing resources to a political cause. And yes, payment processors do owe it to customers to treat them equally with regards to their politics and beliefs (as well as their race, gender, language, and so on). You seem to want to live in a world where wrongthinkers are viciously persecuted by every person, every business, everyone in every possible way. Because you think you'll always be in the team with the power to do that. When you have the experience of being the hated minority, you'll understand the value of equal treatment and the norms of individual freedom.
        ubernostrum 8y ago
        When you have the experience of being the hated minority Politicians of explicitly right-wing alignment control: * The US Presidency * The US Senate * The US House of Representatives * 33/50 US governorships * Legislatures of 26/50 US states and are about to install a conservative-leaning majority into the US Supreme Court. Rosa Parks you ain't, bud.

x0x0 8y ago

Choosing not to do business with someone is not silencing them.

jlawson 8y ago
Of course it is, if you've got a monopoly or duopoly and that someone has no realistic alternatives. You're right it's not silencing if there are many alternatives, e.g. if someone wanted to buy a wedding cake.