5 ms·

The difference is intolerance. I don't think the problem with Alex Jone's is the subject matter or beliefs but the advocation of violence and spread of intolera

The difference is intolerance. I don't think the problem with Alex Jone's is the subject matter or beliefs but the advocation of violence and spread of intolerance, hate, and misinformation. Freedom of speech is not without reasonable restriction. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment. Silencing Jones on these platforms in my opinion amounts to good housekeeping allowing others to actually express their opinions without manipulation. Part of an intellectually open and honest society is banishing those who seek to manipulate it.

adventured 8y ago
You're conflating two entirely different things. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't an issue of speech, that's an act of violence. You're attempting harm upon people. Once you step into the realm of acts of initiating violence, you've crossed out of matters of free speech, they're two different things and must be addressed differently. If I take out a bullhorn and blast it into someone's ear, harming their eardrum, that's also not a matter of speech, it's an act of violence against that person. Holding someone down and painting a swastika on their chest is also not a matter of speech, that too is an act of violence, for the exact same conceptual reason as the bullhorn and yelling fire are. Disgusting speech should be protected. The absolute worst thing you can do, is try to bury that type of speech under laws. The US culture defeated the KKK - which was once large and influential at its peak - precisely because the realm of debate and ideas was firmly held open. Their speech and ideology was not outlawed, their ideas overwhelmingly lost in the public cultural debate. Extremely liberal free speech protections are why the KKK couldn't win then, and haven't managed to resuscitate themselves in the last 30 or 40 years.
- dumbfoundded 8y ago
  There's a difference between disgusting speech and hate speech. I like that you use the KKK as an example. In your world view, do you tolerance a bunch of people marching through the streets screaming: "Kill 'em all"? It's obviously a gray area but you should read up on the paradox of tolerance. The only logical solution for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of tolerance.
  - dandellion 8y ago
    I am all for that, as long as it's the other intolerants that are not tolerating, right? I've since come to the conclusion that it's mostly pointless to talk about "tolerance" and that it's the individual acts of intolerance that should be addressed on a case by case basis.
gerbilly 8y ago
> You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment. Fortunately, you can still yell "Theatre!" in a crowded fire though.
repolfx 8y ago
But the Chinese government is famously intolerant, and spreads misinformation and hate all the time (hate towards various groups, some of them ethnic some of them ideological). They consider silencing of various people to be good housekeeping as well. iamdave is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy here. Well, hypocrisy of some. Not everyone celebrated Alex Jones getting kicked off SV platforms.

adventured 8y ago

You're conflating two entirely different things. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't an issue of speech, that's an act of violence. You're attempting harm upon people. Once you step into the realm of acts of initiating violence, you've crossed out of matters of free speech, they're two different things and must be addressed differently. If I take out a bullhorn and blast it into someone's ear, harming their eardrum, that's also not a matter of speech, it's an act of violence against that person. Holding someone down and painting a swastika on their chest is also not a matter of speech, that too is an act of violence, for the exact same conceptual reason as the bullhorn and yelling fire are. Disgusting speech should be protected. The absolute worst thing you can do, is try to bury that type of speech under laws. The US culture defeated the KKK - which was once large and influential at its peak - precisely because the realm of debate and ideas was firmly held open. Their speech and ideology was not outlawed, their ideas overwhelmingly lost in the public cultural debate. Extremely liberal free speech protections are why the KKK couldn't win then, and haven't managed to resuscitate themselves in the last 30 or 40 years.

dumbfoundded 8y ago
There's a difference between disgusting speech and hate speech. I like that you use the KKK as an example. In your world view, do you tolerance a bunch of people marching through the streets screaming: "Kill 'em all"? It's obviously a gray area but you should read up on the paradox of tolerance. The only logical solution for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of tolerance.
- dandellion 8y ago
  I am all for that, as long as it's the other intolerants that are not tolerating, right? I've since come to the conclusion that it's mostly pointless to talk about "tolerance" and that it's the individual acts of intolerance that should be addressed on a case by case basis.

gerbilly 8y ago

> You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment. Fortunately, you can still yell "Theatre!" in a crowded fire though.

repolfx 8y ago

But the Chinese government is famously intolerant, and spreads misinformation and hate all the time (hate towards various groups, some of them ethnic some of them ideological). They consider silencing of various people to be good housekeeping as well. iamdave is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy here. Well, hypocrisy of some. Not everyone celebrated Alex Jones getting kicked off SV platforms.