3 ms·
That seems like it would just silence minority voices.
by spzb 6y ago
That seems like it would just silence minority voices.
- roflc0ptic 6y agoRight. How would anyone argue for the repeal of popular, unjust laws? Having free speech tied to current moral fashions seems disastrous.
- amelius 6y ago> Having free speech tied to current moral fashions seems disastrous. Well, the entire point is that free speech is not the same as broadcasting rights. You can still have free speech. You just don't get a "free platform".
- amelius 6y agoNot if the majority would allow them. Minorities can still have discussion groups. It's just that their ideas never achieve mass broadcasting if the majority finds those ideas objectionable.
- rhexs 6y agoI’m amazed how a large portion of the Internet can hold two diametrically opposed ideas in their heads like this as the same time. Really bodes well for the next decade. “You still have freedom of speech, but can only talk about subjects I approve of”.
- amelius 6y ago> “You still have freedom of speech, but can only talk about subjects I approve of”. No, it is: “You still have freedom of speech, but not a free platform”.
- rleigh 6y agoYou are advocating censorship of "objectionable" views. Who is to judge what is and what is not "objectionable" and what can and cannot be spoken in public? This is absolutely wrong. To do this is to revisit some of the worst days of the 20th century. I am astonished that views like this are getting more popular. Have we learned nothing from history? In all seriousness, what do you think will be the eventual outcome when you marginalise people this way? Don't just reply to me here. Go and do some real reading.