5 ms·
"Free speech absolutists" are always unpopular because they tend to be the only ones supporting the rights of detestable individuals. That's probably why you no
by kypro 3y ago
"Free speech absolutists" are always unpopular because they tend to be the only ones supporting the rights of detestable individuals. That's probably why you notice them and it's probably why you're seemingly critical of their character.
You seem to be suggesting that "free speech absolutists" don't care about "actual free speech". I'm not sure how you're defining "actual free speech" here, but I'll assume it's state suppression of speech. I can only speak for myself, but personally I am concerned about all suppression of speech. Perhaps where we differ is that I don't really care if it's a mega corp suppressing speech or a government. I don't care if 99% of people disagree with what's being said. I think the fact we culturally compromising our position on free speech today is what gives governments the power to suppress speech. If it's wrong to say something on Facebook, then perhaps its wrong to say it generally?
If I can't call you something derogatory on Facebook, then why should I be able allowed to say derogatory things to the police? If derogatory language is unacceptable, then it's unacceptable. This is the position European countries have now taken on speech because culturally that is now what people want. If people were tolerant of speech as a principle then this would never have happened.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Eisenstein 3y ago> "Free speech absolutists" are always unpopular because they tend to be the only ones supporting the rights of detestable individuals. That's probably why you notice them and it's probably why you're seemingly critical of their character. Can you please list some of these people?
- sbuttgereit 3y agoA couple off the top of my head... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Silverglate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Silverglate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Charles_Kors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Charles_Kors Here's an interview with Silverglate where he discusses being an "absolutist" right in the introduction to the interview (briefly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTjSrrf6GQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTjSrrf6GQ
- Eisenstein 3y agoThanks for point them out, I hadn't heard of them. Are you sure that these two are typical of the people that OP was writing about though?
- sbuttgereit 3y agoThe OP, insofar as I can tell is looking at the apparent inconsistencies of a single person that claims that title and is extrapolating from there. Thus their closing question. I'm making some assumption there, but there are enough clues in the OPs text to make that a reasonable assumption. My point is that, without too much effort, you can find others that don't fit that implicit premise. Another I just thought of is Nat Hentoff https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/309340.Free_Speech_for_Me_But_Not_for_Thee https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/309340.Free_Speech_for_M...
- Eisenstein 3y agoI think your assumptions about OPs arguments are correct. I think a more charitable way of looking at it though is that one must confront what loudest people with a following are doing with a public issue, because regardless of who is or is not the 'true' representative, the loud ones with the followings are going to end up (have ended up?) defining it. Perhaps a better take than to limit arguing on the point of what is actually 'free speech absolutism' would be to argue that those to whom the OP refers are not actually representatives are are bad faith actors? After such one can define it, or, better yet, come up with a new set of terms not yet defined out of bounds.
- kypro 3y agoIf downvoting, please explain your disagreement. If I'm wrong about something I would like to understand why.
- seanw444 3y agoI don't have an argument, you're just wrong because I dislike your point. But seriously: apparently the logic is that we can say almost whatever we want to the police, whom we interact with less. But we can't freely speak towards our peers, which is the larger of the two issues, because we speak to them daily. Makes no sense.