3 ms·

If that's the argument, we should pull public funding then. More generally, I actually sincerely support the concept of free speech, so I want people to have fr

If that's the argument, we should pull public funding then. More generally, I actually sincerely support the concept of free speech, so I want people to have free speech. Since that is my position, it's hard for me to see much use in figuring out all the times I should be allowed to restrict someone's speech.

atoav 3y ago
You pretend here that the public has no interest OR isn't allowed to have any. That is false. It is e.g. in the public interest to sustain our democratic free order so we can remain to live in a free society, where no wannabe dictator controls the markets or applies the laws as he pleases. It is also in our interest that the truth gets more stage than lies and fearmongering. Now maybe you can draw the conclusion yourself why supporting and showcasing opinions that threaten said democratic free order don't have to be supported by the public. If the public does support that, it is merely a courtesy or a misunderstood idea of tolerance. But collectively as a society we live under a set of rules and are given a set of freedoms, all of which you can like or scoff at. But what you cannot do is demand the freedoms to then spout opinions about abolishing the very freedoms that enabled you to speak. No free society for example has to support the spread of the ideas of the likes of ISIS. In fact there have been multiple nations that even went into armed conflicts precisely on those grounds (if we ignore other geopolitical interests for a moment). That being said, what if in the West there was something akin to ISIS? Should we invest our public money into having their speech amplified? Just because their speech needs to be heard?
campbel 3y ago
Are you suggesting not providing a platform is the same as restricting someones free speech?

3 ms·

If that's the argument, we should pull public funding then. More generally, I actually sincerely support the concept of free speech, so I want people to have fr

by ofslidingfeet 3y ago

atoav 3y ago
You pretend here that the public has no interest OR isn't allowed to have any. That is false. It is e.g. in the public interest to sustain our democratic free order so we can remain to live in a free society, where no wannabe dictator controls the markets or applies the laws as he pleases. It is also in our interest that the truth gets more stage than lies and fearmongering. Now maybe you can draw the conclusion yourself why supporting and showcasing opinions that threaten said democratic free order don't have to be supported by the public. If the public does support that, it is merely a courtesy or a misunderstood idea of tolerance. But collectively as a society we live under a set of rules and are given a set of freedoms, all of which you can like or scoff at. But what you cannot do is demand the freedoms to then spout opinions about abolishing the very freedoms that enabled you to speak. No free society for example has to support the spread of the ideas of the likes of ISIS. In fact there have been multiple nations that even went into armed conflicts precisely on those grounds (if we ignore other geopolitical interests for a moment). That being said, what if in the West there was something akin to ISIS? Should we invest our public money into having their speech amplified? Just because their speech needs to be heard?
campbel 3y ago
Are you suggesting not providing a platform is the same as restricting someones free speech?