4 ms·

That's literally the argument of "Repressive Tolarence". And no, people taking a principled stand would have been best as soon as the scapegoating and othering

That's literally the argument of "Repressive Tolarence". And no, people taking a principled stand would have been best as soon as the scapegoating and othering started. If robust speech against Hitler had been possible that would be good too. But opposition was censored, wasn't it... Think about it.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
The mistaken premise in these debates is the implication that we're all equal in the public forum. Of course we aren't. That's why newspapers and media outlets of all kinds should be regulated. Any one individual's views are insignificant compared to the fourth estate firepower of think tank funders and media billionaires of all varieties. There is no equivalence here. The latter can dominate and define public conversations and opinions in a way that most of us can't even imagine, never mind match. Free speech and monopolistic concentrations of money and media power simply cannot co-exist. You can have one or you can have the other, but there is no way you can have both together. And without free speech all you have are distortions generated by very powerful people with very loud bullhorns, who will be front and centre about their views some of the time, but deniably covert the rest of the time. In that kind of environment the concept of censorship is a distraction, because the "freedom" to say what you want - as if it has any real influence at all - is an illusion anyway.
- ahthat 5y ago
  What Hobbes appears to want is Free Speech, but only for the greatest denominator. That is not Free Speech. Free Speech is the open forum, where we trust in our fellow men and women to observe the voices of others, make up their minds, come to their own conclusions in good faith, and contribute where they can. If certain voices are louder than others, that is something we have to live with. It is not Free Speech to shut them up.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

The mistaken premise in these debates is the implication that we're all equal in the public forum. Of course we aren't. That's why newspapers and media outlets of all kinds should be regulated. Any one individual's views are insignificant compared to the fourth estate firepower of think tank funders and media billionaires of all varieties. There is no equivalence here. The latter can dominate and define public conversations and opinions in a way that most of us can't even imagine, never mind match. Free speech and monopolistic concentrations of money and media power simply cannot co-exist. You can have one or you can have the other, but there is no way you can have both together. And without free speech all you have are distortions generated by very powerful people with very loud bullhorns, who will be front and centre about their views some of the time, but deniably covert the rest of the time. In that kind of environment the concept of censorship is a distraction, because the "freedom" to say what you want - as if it has any real influence at all - is an illusion anyway.

ahthat 5y ago
What Hobbes appears to want is Free Speech, but only for the greatest denominator. That is not Free Speech. Free Speech is the open forum, where we trust in our fellow men and women to observe the voices of others, make up their minds, come to their own conclusions in good faith, and contribute where they can. If certain voices are louder than others, that is something we have to live with. It is not Free Speech to shut them up.