And then have it take over your country.
Yawn.
Point out the post where this statement was addressed. I can wait. Iâll be waiting a long time, because every time someone has made this argument, even in the form of a simplistic comic anyone could understand, that tolerance of intolerance is antithetical to a safe society, you and the rest of the freeze peach absolutists ignore it and donât respond. Again and again and again the argument is stated, yet no response comes.
Support of the âfree speechâ of nazis is no different than tacit support of nazis. Donât like it? Stop supporting nazis.
So we all know from the rest of the thread that you meant for this to somehow be supportive of free speech rather than a point against it.
What you posted is the equivalent of this:
Thatâs an argument against taking the medication. The argument in favour of taking the medication is that the benefits of it outweigh the harms. I take medication daily that has unfortunate side effects. I take it because Iâve weighed the benefits against the harms.
If someone posted the above image in support of taking medication I could only assume they were so ideologically in favour of taking medication that they mistook the drawbacks of doing so for benefits. If I was proud of being constipated because it showed my commitment to taking my pills, that would necessitate me seeing virtue in the act of taking the pills themselves, instead of valuing them for the good they do.
Why free speech is a good thing
Aint it nice to have freedom of speech?
Except the problem is, the US doesnât have free speech.
Not when court decisions like Citizens United can allow corporate entities to buy up all the microphones and the city squares, not when corporate interests determine who gets to talk, where, for how long and about what. Not when the laws to protect free speech, like limits on media ownership and concentration, are being swept aside.
So, itâs not your government that makes the rules saying what you can and cannot talk about. That doesnât mean youâre any freer. It just means you answer to a different set of overlords. Youâre still living in 1984.
Oh and you donât need laws against free speech, per se to squash it with laws either. All those places that ban felons from voting? Yeah, itâs not that hard to imagine some kind of felony manufacturing against inconvenient people. Whatâs a little mass incarceration, hmm? You have all sorts of ways around that amendment, almost as if it was an ideal, not an actual thing.
And yet here you are, speaking freely about your lack of freedom to speak about your freedom to speak freely.
Am I? If BB doesnât like what I have to say, they can make it disappear like it never existed â that is their right. And if my speech ever gets too out of line⌠well, McCarthyism isnât dead and gone, and nobodyâs so squeaky clean that they canât be locked up, renditioned, or simply made to go away for some reason.
That is not freedom, itâs just a very elaborate illusion.
Also, I have the money and credit rating to afford a device and access to the Internet in a country that is of the opinion that said Internet is a utility, not a privilege.
It ainât free speech if we limit it to those who can afford to pay for it.
Here in the United States, itâs all free if you know what to do!
Or go to a library, or pool funds and get a $10 phone, etc.
