The point I was trying to make, loses nuance on this medium. I'll give it a shot...
-
-
I fall in the "Free Speech absolutism" end of the spectrum. No "risk of offence" should be excuse to limit it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The exceptions are few and far in between. They basically boil down to immediate and demonstrable harm.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To be even more specific, "harm" as in "there's guns in the room". Not harm as in "'i'm sensitive".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Said this, if an Uni fails to live up to this standard, I prefer to cry "You suck as Uni!". Not "You censor"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
As I said, it may boil down to semantics. The reason is that "Free Speech" in Mill tradition is about State.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
My main concern is overusing "Free Speech" depletes its value. And we may need the full value for other things
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If a State passes an illiberal law, I want to have an exclusive, emergency, full-strength expression for that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't want to risk the public to think "Oh, it's about Free Speech again. Boring, they always complain."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drMajMaj @knwledgepursuer
But in the meanwhile, its becoming OK to just ban ideas you don't like whilst claiming to be abt discussing ideas
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm less concerned abt government than smaller-scale censorships in the universities & forums & workplaces.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.