3 ms·

"Which includes the people who run this site." How so? They're publishing things on their service they disagree with, so they clearly believe in free speech fo

"Which includes the people who run this site." How so? They're publishing things on their service they disagree with, so they clearly believe in free speech for people they disagree with. "are clearly against free speech such as ADL and SPLC" This is not clear to me. The SPLC has never taken any steps to criminalize speech or advocate for government censorship, as far as I can tell. In fact, it is just exercising its own right to free speech when it critiques what it perceives as others' harmful speech. That's the whole point of free speech, you counteract speech you don't like with speech you do like. Of course, you are also just engaging in free speech when you accuse them of being against free speech, and I also just engage in free speech when I disagree with you, so it's all good :-)

giantrobot 2y ago
There's people that for some reason think "free speech" means speech free from consequences. To them anyone trying to impose consequences for their speech or tell others their speech deserves consequences is engaging in censorship. I don't know if the GP is a member of this group but it does read that way.
- qntmfred 2y ago
  the other side of the pendulum is the people that for some reason think "free speech" means harmful speech. To them anyone who wants free speech must be trying to escape consequences their speech deserves.
qntmfred 2y ago
I remember a few years ago SPLC smeared a public figure I support not for anything they actually said, but for speaking at an event that somebody else that SPLC doesn't like was speaking at. I've since noticed a number of times that SPLC has aimed their justice cannon at undeserving (imo) individuals. Not saying everything they do is tainted, but I certainly now take everything I see from them with a grain of salt.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Everything anyone says should be taken with a grain of salt; blind trust is never a good idea. Having said that, this has nothing to do with the Southern Poverty Law Center's stance on free speech. Rather, you're pointing out an instance where they made use of their right to free speech to criticise somebody, and now you're making use of your right to free speech to criticise them.

giantrobot 2y ago

There's people that for some reason think "free speech" means speech free from consequences. To them anyone trying to impose consequences for their speech or tell others their speech deserves consequences is engaging in censorship. I don't know if the GP is a member of this group but it does read that way.

qntmfred 2y ago
the other side of the pendulum is the people that for some reason think "free speech" means harmful speech. To them anyone who wants free speech must be trying to escape consequences their speech deserves.

qntmfred 2y ago

I remember a few years ago SPLC smeared a public figure I support not for anything they actually said, but for speaking at an event that somebody else that SPLC doesn't like was speaking at. I've since noticed a number of times that SPLC has aimed their justice cannon at undeserving (imo) individuals. Not saying everything they do is tainted, but I certainly now take everything I see from them with a grain of salt.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Everything anyone says should be taken with a grain of salt; blind trust is never a good idea. Having said that, this has nothing to do with the Southern Poverty Law Center's stance on free speech. Rather, you're pointing out an instance where they made use of their right to free speech to criticise somebody, and now you're making use of your right to free speech to criticise them.