Argument is that if I use these terms to criticise anti-freedom attitudes in individuals & groups, they lose impact when governments do it
It is addressed to governments tho. It's governments who decide whether to opt into universal human rights or not.
-
-
Sure, governments enforce it. But aren't they meant to protect those rights from infringement, regardless of who is infringing?
-
No. People decide who can & can't talk abt what in their private spaces.
-
Being able to control your own private spaces doesn't seem incompatible with freedom of expression.
-
No. So the gov doesn't control it. Then private companies, institutions, individuals etc decide whether to uphold it or not.
-
In some places its unreasonable to expect FoS. Eg, only talk abt science at science conferences. Child-appropriate in schools
-
In others eg universities, social media, we can criticise the banning of certain views & argue they shld uphold free speech.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.