3 ms·
He would. It is a consequence that you will also always defend unsavory speech. This hasn't changed through the ages and is often mentioned preemptively because
by raxxorrax 5y ago
He would. It is a consequence that you will also always defend unsavory speech. This hasn't changed through the ages and is often mentioned preemptively because the experience tells you how people will react. I think he would have been smarter than to jump on the bandwagon against hate speech though.
But that isn't what you mean anyway.
- rusk 5y ago> This hasn't changed through the ages Hasn't it? A few hundred years ago you were talking about the right to speak unsavorily without being put in jail or worse. In the last hundred years we have developed pervasive media and communications, and these days the discussion is to what degree the unsavory should be given a platform, granted air-time, provided with targeted advertising ... and perhaps more importantly the right to tune it all out if you want. In the days of Voltaire if you didn't like what somebody was saying you could just walk the other way. These days they follow you round YouTube.
- raxxorrax 5y agoMore exactly we are not talking about giving it a platform. We are talking about removing hate from platforms and it is as ridiculous as it sounds.