4 ms·
Fundamentally it's the idea that you should not tolerate the intolerant. This idea is what many people believe who justify the use of this kind of censorship V
by thinkingemote 7y ago
Fundamentally it's the idea that you should not tolerate the intolerant.
This idea is what many people believe who justify the use of this kind of censorship Vs freedom of expression.
- mc32 7y agoThat’s problematic. Who decides what’s tolerable and not? Twenty years ago this posture would go contra liberal thought. Do the accused soon not deserve representation because they’re intolerable? It’s like show trials are wanting to show their face right around the corner any day soon.
- pinkfoot 7y ago> who decides what’s [intolerable]? A fantastic first step is to eliminate anyone who reserve the right to unilaterally use violence in the name of religion. After that, exclude those who want a special deal for their faction that they wont grant others. See, easy.
- mc32 7y agoThe word violence in common usage used to have a meaning. Now it can mean anything you want it to mean. There is no solid ground down this path.
- pinkfoot 7y agoFair enough: actual murders or direct threats thereof.
- mc32 7y agoCurious, does it imply people in prison for rape murder and assault should not be able to have a book written, what about providing an interview?
- pjc50 7y agoThis is already law in a lot of places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law
- mc32 7y agoThat’s not the same. That says they cannot profit monetarily. So in this case of what’s his face had judgements against him, or indeed was serving a felonious sentence the state could seize proceeds. It doesn’t give them the right to censor publishing.
- monksy 7y agoThe usage of violence is already illegal.