3 ms·

I don’t see this as some hypocritical indictment. I don’t think free speech organizations should be expected to treat all forms of speech equally and without qu

I don’t see this as some hypocritical indictment. I don’t think free speech organizations should be expected to treat all forms of speech equally and without qualification. Especially when we get to the point of actions, such as anonymously reporting people, being considered speech. When I think of free speech the context is usually the freedom of discourse and the ability to say controversial things - rather than the demand for total and unrestricted liberty.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Especially when we get to the point of actions, such as anonymously reporting people, being considered speech. So are whistleblowers like Deep Throat ate people you believe shouldn't have right to report and publish material? > When I think of free speech the context is usually the freedom of discourse and the ability to say controversial things - rather than the demand for total and unrestricted liberty. You have it backwards. Your pursuing permission not freedom. To have the freedom to speak of controversial subjects speech you must first have the freedom to speak. Freedoms are unrestricted by their very nature. While I'm not very knowledgeable of English Law, Cambridge University (and every other university in England) receives taxpayer funding. If keeping free speech on campus is a condition for such funding, then this isn't censorship, but a contractual matter between Cambridge and the English courts that Free Speech Union would like to have observed and enforced.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  >”So are whistleblowers like Deep Throat ate people you believe shouldn't have right to report and publish material?” That’s quite different from what I was getting at. I am pro free speech, which includes journalists like you’ve mentioned. What I was getting at is, people can be pro “free speech” insomuch as wanting open dialogue of controversial or heretical topics while simultaneously finding some kinds of speech/actions chilling and opposing such things. And, they can do this without being considered fundamentally flawed hypocrites. I’ll propose a hypothetical/analogy. Envision it is the 1950’s in America and I support the rights of communists to speak on college campuses. But I do not support a system to report suspected communist sympathizers to the House Un-American Activities Committee. It could be argued that I’m infringing on the speech rights of the McCarthyites. But in my mind this doesn’t mean I’m anti free speech, because I’m ultimately opposing something I believe has a chilling effect on speech.

Dracophoenix 4y ago

> Especially when we get to the point of actions, such as anonymously reporting people, being considered speech. So are whistleblowers like Deep Throat ate people you believe shouldn't have right to report and publish material? > When I think of free speech the context is usually the freedom of discourse and the ability to say controversial things - rather than the demand for total and unrestricted liberty. You have it backwards. Your pursuing permission not freedom. To have the freedom to speak of controversial subjects speech you must first have the freedom to speak. Freedoms are unrestricted by their very nature. While I'm not very knowledgeable of English Law, Cambridge University (and every other university in England) receives taxpayer funding. If keeping free speech on campus is a condition for such funding, then this isn't censorship, but a contractual matter between Cambridge and the English courts that Free Speech Union would like to have observed and enforced.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”So are whistleblowers like Deep Throat ate people you believe shouldn't have right to report and publish material?” That’s quite different from what I was getting at. I am pro free speech, which includes journalists like you’ve mentioned. What I was getting at is, people can be pro “free speech” insomuch as wanting open dialogue of controversial or heretical topics while simultaneously finding some kinds of speech/actions chilling and opposing such things. And, they can do this without being considered fundamentally flawed hypocrites. I’ll propose a hypothetical/analogy. Envision it is the 1950’s in America and I support the rights of communists to speak on college campuses. But I do not support a system to report suspected communist sympathizers to the House Un-American Activities Committee. It could be argued that I’m infringing on the speech rights of the McCarthyites. But in my mind this doesn’t mean I’m anti free speech, because I’m ultimately opposing something I believe has a chilling effect on speech.