3 ms·
> The real debate here is not about the principle of free speech, but the much grayer question of how we draw its boundaries. What kinds of speech should be mor
by ColanR 6y ago
> The real debate here is not about the principle of free speech, but the much grayer question of how we draw its boundaries. What kinds of speech should be morally out of bounds?
"All speech is free, some speech is more free than others."
- ReedJessen 6y agoword. This construction they have provided suggest the author doesn't really understand what "Free as in Speech" means.
- lern_too_spel 6y agoThe author specifically points out that speech is restricted everywhere and has always been.
- novembermike 6y agoRestrictions are usually on specific modes (ie. no violence, obscenity, etc) rather than the content of the speech. Most of the current attempts to restrict speech focus on contents.
- conception 6y agoWhat’s an example of free speech being violated now (in the USA debate at least) that’s not about violence? Just curious what you think should be ok to promote without restriction that you think is being curbed.
- lern_too_spel 6y agoAs the article points out, neo-Nazis have not been allowed certain platforms for a very long time and would get "cancelled" if their views were known. That is content of speech.
- uniqueid 6y agoI don't follow. Why draw a distinction between the "mode" of speech, and its "content", and what exactly is the difference? With apologies, it sounds like a "no true Scotsman" position, where censorship is only real when it bolsters one side of the argument.