3 ms·

Access to platforms (and the freedom of the press) is an important topic, yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the question of whether the FBI calling a

by geofft 7y ago

Access to platforms (and the freedom of the press) is an important topic, yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the question of whether the FBI calling a group of people with odious opinions a national security threat endangers their freedom of speech.

basch 7y ago
>Not a trick question–honestly I would be willing to argue in favor of al-Qaeda's freedom of speech, including their freedom to advocate their ideology in the US. I guess where I am going is, do you favor their equal access to private broadcast services? If no, then its functionally equivalent to suppression their speech rights, given our current environment, because all public speech needs to exit out 1 of those 20 megaphones. Otherwise its like supporting everyones right to their own billboard, but saying the government or an oligopoly gets to control the land access of who gets to place one hear a highway. A billboard away from a highway is like a tree falling in a forest without someone to hear it, from an auditory perspective, it didnt happen.
- geofft 7y ago
  I don't think it's functionally equivalent to suppression of their free speech rights, because I don't believe in free speech as an abstract virtue of society, I believe in free speech as a check on the powers of an oppressive government. If you want to tell people about the faults of the government and organize resistance, you're never going to get the support of established media channels, regardless of whether you're in a democracy or a monarchy or a communist state. But it is still important that you be able to set up person-to-person communication networks and hold meetings of like-minded people and try to persuade people to your cause without being imprisoned. I think al-Qaeda's speech acts are difficult to distinguish from a genuine homegrown resistance/revolutionary movement, and I worry that laws that criminalize advocating its ideology can also be used to crush a budding resistance movement and censor the spread of material the government finds embarrassing.

by geofft 7y ago

basch 7y ago

>Not a trick question–honestly I would be willing to argue in favor of al-Qaeda's freedom of speech, including their freedom to advocate their ideology in the US. I guess where I am going is, do you favor their equal access to private broadcast services? If no, then its functionally equivalent to suppression their speech rights, given our current environment, because all public speech needs to exit out 1 of those 20 megaphones. Otherwise its like supporting everyones right to their own billboard, but saying the government or an oligopoly gets to control the land access of who gets to place one hear a highway. A billboard away from a highway is like a tree falling in a forest without someone to hear it, from an auditory perspective, it didnt happen.

geofft 7y ago
I don't think it's functionally equivalent to suppression of their free speech rights, because I don't believe in free speech as an abstract virtue of society, I believe in free speech as a check on the powers of an oppressive government. If you want to tell people about the faults of the government and organize resistance, you're never going to get the support of established media channels, regardless of whether you're in a democracy or a monarchy or a communist state. But it is still important that you be able to set up person-to-person communication networks and hold meetings of like-minded people and try to persuade people to your cause without being imprisoned. I think al-Qaeda's speech acts are difficult to distinguish from a genuine homegrown resistance/revolutionary movement, and I worry that laws that criminalize advocating its ideology can also be used to crush a budding resistance movement and censor the spread of material the government finds embarrassing.