4 ms·

That's a self-contradiction. You say most people don't agree with free speech, then you state if you ask people if they agree with it actually most will say ye

That's a self-contradiction. You say most people don't agree with free speech, then you state if you ask people if they agree with it actually most will say yes, but that's meaningless because their opinion would be ill considered. I think all this shows is you don't care what other people think. Either they agree with you in which case they're right, or they disagree in which case it doesn't matter because they aren't smart enough to have an opinion, indeed, it's not even worth asking them because you can get any answer you want. That is the hallmark of totalitarian thinking throughout time.

majewsky 7y ago
I've been called a lot of things, but totalitarian? That's a new one. My point is that free-speech advocates use opinion polls as an argument, saying that a majority supports free speech. But this argument is misguided because when you actually talk to people and make them consider the ramifications of radically free speech (e.g. "Do you support the right of other people to call for you being murdered?"), their opinions usually become much more nuanced.
- repolfx 7y ago
  Yes, asking more precise questions will give more nuanced answers. But that doesn't invalidate the vaguer statement - most people do support speech being much more free than restricted, especially in America. That matters: you can't say "ah ha, but sometimes when given extreme examples people have doubt, so banning speech is totally OK". That's not what they said when they were asked. And by the way, I'm sure I can easily take that person prevaricating because they were given the "calling for you to be murdered" example and bring them back to supporting "radically" free speech. Just ask if they've ever said something like, "Damnit, I'm going to kill that guy!" when they got frustrated or upset. And if the answer is yes, point out that if they're against "other people calling for someone to be murdered" then they'd themselves be in prison. They'd object by saying something like, yes but of course I didn't really mean it, that isn't the same thing at all, and then you ask how anyone could tell and how sure they are they could defend themselves in court, if an enemy was claiming it should be taken seriously. In the end the reason for "radical" protections for free speech are logical - the consequences of not having it are worse than the consequences for having it. Genuine mob-raising "let's murder this guy" speech is so incredibly rare compared to political suppression it's not worth worrying about.

majewsky 7y ago

I've been called a lot of things, but totalitarian? That's a new one. My point is that free-speech advocates use opinion polls as an argument, saying that a majority supports free speech. But this argument is misguided because when you actually talk to people and make them consider the ramifications of radically free speech (e.g. "Do you support the right of other people to call for you being murdered?"), their opinions usually become much more nuanced.

repolfx 7y ago
Yes, asking more precise questions will give more nuanced answers. But that doesn't invalidate the vaguer statement - most people do support speech being much more free than restricted, especially in America. That matters: you can't say "ah ha, but sometimes when given extreme examples people have doubt, so banning speech is totally OK". That's not what they said when they were asked. And by the way, I'm sure I can easily take that person prevaricating because they were given the "calling for you to be murdered" example and bring them back to supporting "radically" free speech. Just ask if they've ever said something like, "Damnit, I'm going to kill that guy!" when they got frustrated or upset. And if the answer is yes, point out that if they're against "other people calling for someone to be murdered" then they'd themselves be in prison. They'd object by saying something like, yes but of course I didn't really mean it, that isn't the same thing at all, and then you ask how anyone could tell and how sure they are they could defend themselves in court, if an enemy was claiming it should be taken seriously. In the end the reason for "radical" protections for free speech are logical - the consequences of not having it are worse than the consequences for having it. Genuine mob-raising "let's murder this guy" speech is so incredibly rare compared to political suppression it's not worth worrying about.