3 ms·
Yes, I know what you're going to say, "nobody" does not mean literally nobody, but in this case there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no s
by Vecr 3y ago
Yes, I know what you're going to say, "nobody" does not mean literally nobody, but in this case there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned.
- root_axis 3y agoI would argue they're not prominent, there are some fringe individuals who might hold this philosophy, but not any organization that actually runs a site where users can speak, and certainly nobody involved in politics regardless of their political beliefs.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned Do you have an example that’s been presented coherently? Every one I’ve seen creates caveats for, at their worst, speech they don’t like, and at their best, spam. (The latter seeming like a small exception until we get around to precisely defining it.)
- dessimus 3y ago>there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned. Yes, "no speech should be banned" right up until it's about posting the publicly available flight logs tracking a private jet, and then its not cool.
- mc32 3y agoYou know, as long as it's not the government dictating it. Or, look at it this way, if this stifler of free speech were to add the flight logs of prominent opponents of his, I bet some of the complainers complaining about his suppression would clamor for suppression.