3 ms·
Nowadays the debate always tends to be drawn by dishonest actors towards if something "technically counts" as censorship or not. The idea of free speech is no l
by rosmax_1337 3y ago
Nowadays the debate always tends to be drawn by dishonest actors towards if something "technically counts" as censorship or not. The idea of free speech is no longer upheld as something of an important idea, but rather something which should be circumvented by as much legal mumbo jumbo as possible.
The point was always, and should be, that we as members of a society should respect and uphold the ability of others to spread ideas, particularly those we ourselves disagree with. This should extend to all faculties of your life within all reasonable reason, not just in the context of government censorship.
- baryphonic 3y agoI've had to make this point far too many times. There is a cultural norm of free speech and then a legal protection embodying that norm. Ever since the (IMO ludicrous) XKCD comic[0], too many have gotten the wires crossed and think free speech is exclusively legalistic rather than the bedrock of an open society. [0] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- sushibowl 3y ago> The idea of free speech is no longer upheld as something of an important idea I don't think this is correct. Most people will tell you free speech is an important ideal to them, which can only be infringed upon in the most severe cases. The problem is that people on all sides of the debate now believe that the other is out to essentially completely and totally destroy their society and way of life. For extremists on either side, it's actually true. The question is, are extremist opinions just disproportionally magnified? Or is this, as you often see claimed on social media, actually what a majority of <opposing side> really want?