2 ms·

Free speech absolutism as an ideal doesn't make sense. The whole reason the notion of free speech exists is that people should be able to say things that other

Free speech absolutism as an ideal doesn't make sense. The whole reason the notion of free speech exists is that people should be able to say things that other people don't like. Saying that we'd be able to have free speech absolutism if only people didn't say or do X is just "X is unacceptable speech" in disguise. If you exclude "bad" speech, freedom of speech is easy! This thread originated with a comment saying it would be ideologically inconsistent for Pirate Bay's mantra to be "information wants to be free" and still remove schematics for 3D printing guns. My point was that a non-absolutist free speech stance is not inherently contradictory. I'm not really interested in a full-throated debate about tech giants' moderation policies right now. But since you seem to think the censorship is unilateral and one-sided, I'd invite you to search through Twitter histories and see who was speaking out about FOSTA-SESTA, or Tumblr's NSFW ban. You'll find it was opposed mostly by libertarians and leftists — while the conservatives now wailing about censorship (and, in fairness, corporate liberals) didn't make a peep.

claudiawerner 6y ago
While what you're saying is completely true, and I've been trying to get this point accross online many times, it is still concerning to me that the same philosophical literature that argues for hate speech to be limited also suggest that porn should be too. There are also arguments that there shouldn't be a constitutional right to freedom of speech at all. If these arguments are convincing, the only line of defense against them is the argument that the state (and/or the population in general) cannot be trusted to make any further restrictions - and I think that's a good argument. Similarly, in countries where speech is more limited, we can point out problems of those limitations; I think it is not a fallacy to suggest there is a slippery slope - especially in the case of governments that serve capital, be they conservative or liberal. I'm very skeptical of the benefits of free speech. I don't think the arguments along the lines of free speech promoting truth or being beneficial to political discourse or allowing 'bad ideas' in the open to be 'disinfected' with debate are valid. But I'm even more skeptical of the state, and I do not trust it to use evidence-based methodologies. I've completely lost all faith in the whole political spectrum, particularly the left-anarchists who promote governmental and corporate censorship.

claudiawerner 6y ago

While what you're saying is completely true, and I've been trying to get this point accross online many times, it is still concerning to me that the same philosophical literature that argues for hate speech to be limited also suggest that porn should be too. There are also arguments that there shouldn't be a constitutional right to freedom of speech at all. If these arguments are convincing, the only line of defense against them is the argument that the state (and/or the population in general) cannot be trusted to make any further restrictions - and I think that's a good argument. Similarly, in countries where speech is more limited, we can point out problems of those limitations; I think it is not a fallacy to suggest there is a slippery slope - especially in the case of governments that serve capital, be they conservative or liberal. I'm very skeptical of the benefits of free speech. I don't think the arguments along the lines of free speech promoting truth or being beneficial to political discourse or allowing 'bad ideas' in the open to be 'disinfected' with debate are valid. But I'm even more skeptical of the state, and I do not trust it to use evidence-based methodologies. I've completely lost all faith in the whole political spectrum, particularly the left-anarchists who promote governmental and corporate censorship.