2 ms·

> but it doesn't mean we can't (or oughtn't) use our own free speech rights to criticize and protest it. I agree. But this goes in both directions. You can't c

> but it doesn't mean we can't (or oughtn't) use our own free speech rights to criticize and protest it. I agree. But this goes in both directions. You can't claim to support free expression while saying that certain forms of speech are unacceptable. It is self-contradictory. Yet that's what harper's does. It criticizes certain forms of speech (criticism) while claiming to uphold the mantle of free expression. You can't have it both ways. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221

throwaway894345 6y ago
> You can't claim to support free expression while saying that certain forms of speech are unacceptable. I'm not making this claim; I'm claiming that it's inconsistent with free speech ideals. I'm not working to prevent anyone from expressing speech which isn't consistent with free speech ideals, and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction. > and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals. I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. The ideal that we don't try to suppress speech we disagree with, but rather we encourage it to debate it. > Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. You're confusing an idea with its expression. There's no inconsistency between free speech ideals and criticizing the idea that speech should be restricted. However, it would be inconsistent to suggest that someone oughtn't express that idea and especially to try to actively prevent someone from expressing it. In other words, anyone welcome to express a belief that censorship is a good thing, but I'm not violating free speech ideals by expressing disagreeing with them; quite the opposite! > joshuamorton 25 minutes ago | parent | on: Blog Anonymously Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction. > I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples. You misunderstood my post. I was certainly not arguing that anyone has been fired for expressing abstract support for free speech. Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals, but rather trying to stop someone from expressing their desire for speech restrictions (and especially by trying to get them fired) would be inconsistent with free speech ideals. However, no one is trying to stop anyone from expressing their preferences for speech restrictions and certainly no one is trying to get anyone fired for expressing those preferences.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals Restricting in what way though? Formal restrictions: laws, assuredly this is inconsistent. But if the "restriction" not a formal restriction, but instead a reaction to criticism, then this is a meta-criticism of criticism, and that is counter to those ideals, because criticism itself is speech.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> You can't claim to support free expression while saying that certain forms of speech are unacceptable. I'm not making this claim; I'm claiming that it's inconsistent with free speech ideals. I'm not working to prevent anyone from expressing speech which isn't consistent with free speech ideals, and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction. > and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals. I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. The ideal that we don't try to suppress speech we disagree with, but rather we encourage it to debate it. > Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. You're confusing an idea with its expression. There's no inconsistency between free speech ideals and criticizing the idea that speech should be restricted. However, it would be inconsistent to suggest that someone oughtn't express that idea and especially to try to actively prevent someone from expressing it. In other words, anyone welcome to express a belief that censorship is a good thing, but I'm not violating free speech ideals by expressing disagreeing with them; quite the opposite! > joshuamorton 25 minutes ago | parent | on: Blog Anonymously Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction. > I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples. You misunderstood my post. I was certainly not arguing that anyone has been fired for expressing abstract support for free speech. Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals, but rather trying to stop someone from expressing their desire for speech restrictions (and especially by trying to get them fired) would be inconsistent with free speech ideals. However, no one is trying to stop anyone from expressing their preferences for speech restrictions and certainly no one is trying to get anyone fired for expressing those preferences.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals Restricting in what way though? Formal restrictions: laws, assuredly this is inconsistent. But if the "restriction" not a formal restriction, but instead a reaction to criticism, then this is a meta-criticism of criticism, and that is counter to those ideals, because criticism itself is speech.