4 ms·

So you're saying, "Destroy free speech to defend free speech"? That sounds a lot like "Destroy the republic to save the republic." I've heard a lot of both re

• metabagel 6y ago
  You don’t seem to be making much of an attempt to understand.
  • geofft 6y ago
    (Which is ironic, because the point of free speech, one would hope, would be to try to understand new viewpoints instead of yelling your slogans into increasingly loud megaphones. Free speech advocates who treat speech as an end in itself rather than as a means to some obviously useful goal like improving society are a large part of why there isn't as much of a public commitment to free speech as you would hope.)
• jonathanyc 6y ago
  Restricting speech that calls for the lynching of the Vice President is “destroying free speech” in the same way that restricting the ownership of nukes is “destroying the right to bear arms”. Prohibiting people from yelling fire in a crowded theater is not “destroying free speech.” I’d advise you to read about: - the paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance - the “imminent lawless action” standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action