Nat Hentoff said 'it's free speech for me, but not for thee' to satirise the tendency of political sides to defend speech they agree with, and suppress that which they don't agree with.

What speech that is currently being censored, would you defend, even when you fundamentally disagree with it?

  • All of it? Is this supposed to be a trick question?

    parent

    Exactly. Free is free.

    parent root

    Well most people aren't free speech absolutists. In the UK you can get arrested for all kinds of speech - hate speech, incitement, offensive comments, harassment.

    I disagree with many of these, but I would agree with drawing the line at incitement to violence.

    If someone had a following of millions of people. And told their following to go after a specific person, and their exact address, I would probably say this should be censored.

    parent root

  • All as a principle.

    parent

  • [deleted]

    parent

    Are you familiar with the open free market, comrade? Capitalism, businesses trying to make a profit? Websites can't make money from ads if they are forced to host Alex Jones lying about dead kids. 

    You may want to head into your local library and pick up a book about capitalism, and private property. You'll learn quickly that no one has to carry Alex Jones. Comrade.

    parent root
    parent root

    It is sooooooo frustrating that people fail to understand their rights are vis a vis the government. If the *government* compelled you to give a platform to speech you did not agree with then *your* rights are the ones being violated.

    parent root
    parent root

    free market capitalism.

    Except we don't have this. Arguing that Google engages in competitive business is rightwing fantasy. They've already been fined twice for price-fixing. Something like 18 out of the 20 largest companies in the US have been found guilty of anti-competitive practices.

    This is why liberalism makes no sense. You're pushing rightwing economics while using leftwing language.

    Google is almost entirely funded by government resources. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren made a very compelling argument that companies like Walmart are placing undue stress on a public good, our roadways. Well Google is doing the same for the internet. Their entire business model depends on broadband connectivity that is largely funded by our government. Also, Google's government contracts represent BILLIONS of dollars in revenue for the company.

    Arguing that Google is engaging in "free market capitalism" requires a complete lack of context.

    parent root

    It's Capitalism 

    parent root

    Price fixing is capitalism? And you're defending that?

    parent root

    YouTube is free. Who's fixing the price? 

    parent root

    [deleted]

    parent root

    Should the government be able to force you to put a certain bumper sticker on your car? Read a certain book aloud to your children? If no, then why should the government be able to require YouTube (or Fox News, or BlueSky, or the New York Times) to platform someone they choose not to include? If the government can force a media outlet to give a platform to one person, where does that end? It could quickly become government-sponsored media.

    parent root

    Luckily the courts here in the US understand real free speech and freedom to not associate is free speech..and the free market

    parent root

  • All of it, on your own media.

    Nobody needs to republish anyone’s works, even if it’s “easy”.

    You don’t get to harass people in public places, though, right of passage is a thing. Your rights get curtailed where they meet another person’s rights, or that other person has limited rights- that’s not how freedom works, you have to respect the rights of others.

    Say whatever you want in your own space to people who choose not to walk away. Publish your own papers and websites and TV broadcasts etc. Everyone has the right to ridicule and ignore you. Nobody needs to publish your work.

    parent

  • "Defend" where it means a defense against censorship or prohibition: all speech that does not fall under incitement to violence, advocacy of genocide, defamation, speech that conflicts with other rights (depending on the situation/context), etc.

    I advocate for free speech advocate but I am not a free speech absolutist.

    parent

    Perhaps you would view this as a technicality, but when speech becomes a crime (incitement to violence, e.g.) or a tort (defamation, e.g.), the law would say they are no longer protected by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. In that sense, I consider myself a free speech absolutist.

    parent root