3 ms·

> If there is a pulpit in the town square, then the 1st amendment says that a speaker is entitled to that pulpit. Okay but what about when I want to use the pu

> If there is a pulpit in the town square, then the 1st amendment says that a speaker is entitled to that pulpit. Okay but what about when I want to use the pulpit? By your logic, if you're using the pulpit you are restricting my speech, because I can't exercise my speech while you're exercising yours. And by that token, if everyone in the town square wanted to shout you down and drown you out while you were at the pulpit, you can't really complain on the basis of free speech, right? Because any restrictions on their shouting would encroach on their free speech rights. Apparently this is what we call "cancel culture", and the reason we're still talking about it today is that people complaining about it have no coherent ideas on how to fix it without also trampling all over the very free speech principles they are decrying have been violated. This knot people have tied themselves into is fascinating.

ambrozk 5y ago
No, you're imagining complications that don't exist. The very boring answer is that if two people (or groups) want to exercise their right to free speech at the same time, the government is charged with fairly apportioning the space to each of them in turn, in such a manner that both will ultimately be able to express themselves. If one of the parties feels the government is unfairly restricting their right to speech, they can take the government to court, and the court will adjudicate the dispute. What people are describing as "cancel culture" is a totally different phenomenon.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > the government is charged with fairly apportioning the space to each of them in turn, in such a manner that both will ultimately be able to express themselves. But even if you have the space according to whatever schedule is set up, I and all my friends can still go to the square while you are talking, and we can open our mouths to scream at the top of our lungs for as long as we like. Right? That's unrestricted free speech, is it not? For the government to come along and tell me to close my mouth, that would abridge my free speech rights. > What people are describing as "cancel culture" is a totally different phenomenon. I'm not sure. I've seen the term applied to almost any kind of restriction of speech, no matter how benign or justified. It's so broad as to be meaningless at this point.

ambrozk 5y ago

No, you're imagining complications that don't exist. The very boring answer is that if two people (or groups) want to exercise their right to free speech at the same time, the government is charged with fairly apportioning the space to each of them in turn, in such a manner that both will ultimately be able to express themselves. If one of the parties feels the government is unfairly restricting their right to speech, they can take the government to court, and the court will adjudicate the dispute. What people are describing as "cancel culture" is a totally different phenomenon.

ModernMech 5y ago
> the government is charged with fairly apportioning the space to each of them in turn, in such a manner that both will ultimately be able to express themselves. But even if you have the space according to whatever schedule is set up, I and all my friends can still go to the square while you are talking, and we can open our mouths to scream at the top of our lungs for as long as we like. Right? That's unrestricted free speech, is it not? For the government to come along and tell me to close my mouth, that would abridge my free speech rights. > What people are describing as "cancel culture" is a totally different phenomenon. I'm not sure. I've seen the term applied to almost any kind of restriction of speech, no matter how benign or justified. It's so broad as to be meaningless at this point.