4 ms·
It boils down to whether you think public discourse should have vetos or not. If you think it should not have vetos, then any (legal) topic is acceptableº, and
by mLuby 7y ago
It boils down to whether you think public discourse should have vetos or not.
If you think it should not have vetos, then any (legal) topic is acceptableº, and "Free Speech" is the bedrock of discourse. Since discussions and decisions are held in public, people may find them painful.
If you think it should have vetos, then anyone may declare a topic unacceptableº. Not triggering a veto becomes the key to productive discourse. As one cannot veto what they haven't heard about, many controversial discussions and decisions are made in secret.
º Mechanisms for punishing unacceptable speech range from social isolation through economic isolation and finally to physical isolation.
- mrguyorama 7y agoYou're missing the point that others who call that veto are then subject to the same concept of consequences. If you veto every possible subject, you are not free from consequences either. THAT is the free market of ideas as I understand it
- stcredzero 7y agoYou're missing the point that others who call that veto are then subject to the same concept of consequences. If you veto every possible subject, you are not free from consequences either. THAT is the free market of ideas as I understand it That's not a free market of ideas. That's a free-for-all. That's Gandhi's, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world blind."