3 ms·

Then you are not in favour of free speech, and logically should believe that mainstream comedians like Jimmy Kimmel, Jack Whitehall, Jimmy Carr, etc.. should al

Then you are not in favour of free speech, and logically should believe that mainstream comedians like Jimmy Kimmel, Jack Whitehall, Jimmy Carr, etc.. should all be deplatformed and their lives destroyed, just like this man's. They've all said terrible, mean, things to formulate jokes. Or does your rule only apply when the little guy does something offensive?

ceejayoz 6y ago
> Then you are not in favour of free speech Correct. I'm in favor of certain restrictions on speech; I think Germany's bans on Nazi slogans and symbols are a good model. I draw a distinction between "I trained a dog to make Nazi salutes" and comedy routines, yes. It appears the UK does as well.
- iamstupidsimple 6y ago
  How can you be against free speech when all other freedoms stem from free speech? This is why I don't like what Germany and the UK are doing - any country without true free speech (barring death threats or incitement to violence, etc..) is not really free. Also, the UK has free speech, just not on online platforms and I'd like to see that distinction ended.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > How can you be against free speech when all other freedoms stem from free speech? I don't agree with that bare assertion. I subscribe to the belief that unlimited tolerance leaves societies open to malicious actors. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - iamstupidsimple 6y ago
      See, I do agree on paradox of tolerance, I just think we differ on the best way of resolving that paradox. Freedom of speech != freedom from social consequences. I'm not suggesting racists should get a free pass, just that advocating for it to not get you fined/locked up by the government. WDYT? Edit: On my "derived from free speech" remark - I believe that's the case because freedom of speech is how we keep the government in check. The minute they can decide Nazi imagery is unacceptable, they have legal standing to do the exact same to whichever political party or marginalised group they dislike. Too dangerous imo.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> Then you are not in favour of free speech Correct. I'm in favor of certain restrictions on speech; I think Germany's bans on Nazi slogans and symbols are a good model. I draw a distinction between "I trained a dog to make Nazi salutes" and comedy routines, yes. It appears the UK does as well.

iamstupidsimple 6y ago
How can you be against free speech when all other freedoms stem from free speech? This is why I don't like what Germany and the UK are doing - any country without true free speech (barring death threats or incitement to violence, etc..) is not really free. Also, the UK has free speech, just not on online platforms and I'd like to see that distinction ended.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > How can you be against free speech when all other freedoms stem from free speech? I don't agree with that bare assertion. I subscribe to the belief that unlimited tolerance leaves societies open to malicious actors. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - iamstupidsimple 6y ago
    See, I do agree on paradox of tolerance, I just think we differ on the best way of resolving that paradox. Freedom of speech != freedom from social consequences. I'm not suggesting racists should get a free pass, just that advocating for it to not get you fined/locked up by the government. WDYT? Edit: On my "derived from free speech" remark - I believe that's the case because freedom of speech is how we keep the government in check. The minute they can decide Nazi imagery is unacceptable, they have legal standing to do the exact same to whichever political party or marginalised group they dislike. Too dangerous imo.