3 ms·

A 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/

A 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 ago
Thanks 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I 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.

Eisenstein 3y ago

Thanks 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 ago
The 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 ago
  I 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.