4 ms·

When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." Restric

When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. If you don't believe in free speech, then say so, that's your right as per free speech. But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. What if the peers that review it don't agree with your world view and don't allow books published that you agree with? Will you calmly accept it, or will you claim censorship?

ardy42 6y ago
> When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." No they don't, since you misunderstood what I was saying. > Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. Again, I'm not advocating restricting anyone's speech, but rather emphasizing the value of a system with people who make editorial judgements. Amazon, like any publisher, should have the uncontroversial right to refuse to publish or sell any book it pleases for any reason it finds compelling. If its size makes people queasy about that, then it should be broken up to the point where that's not an issue. > But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. So you're saying it's censorship that scientific journals refuse to publish the papers crackpots send them? It's worth remembering that the ultimate goal of free speech is for the truth to prevail, not to nauseate everyone by forcing them to sort through and disseminate mountains of garbage.

ardy42 6y ago

> When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." No they don't, since you misunderstood what I was saying. > Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. Again, I'm not advocating restricting anyone's speech, but rather emphasizing the value of a system with people who make editorial judgements. Amazon, like any publisher, should have the uncontroversial right to refuse to publish or sell any book it pleases for any reason it finds compelling. If its size makes people queasy about that, then it should be broken up to the point where that's not an issue. > But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. So you're saying it's censorship that scientific journals refuse to publish the papers crackpots send them? It's worth remembering that the ultimate goal of free speech is for the truth to prevail, not to nauseate everyone by forcing them to sort through and disseminate mountains of garbage.