3 ms·

> No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand tha

> No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand that to be a right to be heard, i.e. a right to a captured audience & other people's attention. These same advocates also additionally argued that their rights were being trampled upon when certain communities rejected them due to disagreements on the contents of their speech.

WalterBright 4y ago
What some other people say doesn't invalidate his argument.
- CJefferson 4y ago
  His argument was "No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom" -- while saying "No one.." is always dangerous (as there is always someone, somewhere), I'd say it is fairly common in my experience for people in favour of laws against free speech to also think companies like Twitter should be forced to also allow free speech.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    People who say "no one" or "everyone" do not mean 100%. That isn't how English works. It's why English provides qualifiers like "absolutely no one", or "100% of people". Just like if I say "everybody likes ice cream", you and I both know that there's somebody, somewhere who loathes ice cream.
xdennis 4y ago
> I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand that to be a right to be heard, i.e. a right to a captured audience & other people's attention. You're confusing two different aspects: free speech as a guaranteed right and free speech as a principle. As a right, it means the state shouldn't prevent you from communicating something. An example is the US's First Amendment. As a principle, it means you support speech, even when you disagree with it. An example of this is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As a publisher, you have the free speech right to NOT publish something you disagree with, but you can't then say you support free speech as a concept. It's quite an imposition to force someone to say something he doesn't desire to say. But the free speech advocates you speech of (like me) only want the law to be changed for quasi-public-square entities such as Facebook and Twitter.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  I'm not confusing anything, I merely stated my observations on people expanding (if your distinction applies,to both the right and the concept). That statement should be amended to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it to those who choose to listen" Just as real-life town squares allow people to walk away, boo or shout back at speakers, the same rights should be preserved for audiences on Facebook and Twitter.

WalterBright 4y ago

What some other people say doesn't invalidate his argument.

CJefferson 4y ago
His argument was "No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom" -- while saying "No one.." is always dangerous (as there is always someone, somewhere), I'd say it is fairly common in my experience for people in favour of laws against free speech to also think companies like Twitter should be forced to also allow free speech.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  People who say "no one" or "everyone" do not mean 100%. That isn't how English works. It's why English provides qualifiers like "absolutely no one", or "100% of people". Just like if I say "everybody likes ice cream", you and I both know that there's somebody, somewhere who loathes ice cream.

xdennis 4y ago

> I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand that to be a right to be heard, i.e. a right to a captured audience & other people's attention. You're confusing two different aspects: free speech as a guaranteed right and free speech as a principle. As a right, it means the state shouldn't prevent you from communicating something. An example is the US's First Amendment. As a principle, it means you support speech, even when you disagree with it. An example of this is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As a publisher, you have the free speech right to NOT publish something you disagree with, but you can't then say you support free speech as a concept. It's quite an imposition to force someone to say something he doesn't desire to say. But the free speech advocates you speech of (like me) only want the law to be changed for quasi-public-square entities such as Facebook and Twitter.

sangnoir 4y ago
I'm not confusing anything, I merely stated my observations on people expanding (if your distinction applies,to both the right and the concept). That statement should be amended to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it to those who choose to listen" Just as real-life town squares allow people to walk away, boo or shout back at speakers, the same rights should be preserved for audiences on Facebook and Twitter.