It is, you know. You support freedom of speech by not preventing speech. Even when I was at my most anti-religious, I would not have gone into a church or mosque & shouted the vicar/imam down coz I thought they were speaking horrible nonsense. Other people wanted to hear.https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/971016050702766080 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Eh.
@DavidKlion is wrong. If she was arranged to be there it's kinda bullshit that she was interrupted. But equally I think you're wrong too. Free speech is a two way street. She has her right to speak freely just as much as they have a right to yell over the top of her.11 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The point is that we all get to use our freedom of speech however we damn well please. Neither kind of policing from either of you is particularly in the spirit of that.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This is a little like saying: "You have a right to write a book, but we have a write to scrawl all over it so that it's incomprehensible before anyone else can buy it." This is not what freedom of speech means in a civil society.
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
No it's like saying if you write a book about something and I disagree with it I'm allowed to show up at your book signing and tell everyone your book is bullshit.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's not what is happen at these seminar. They are scrawling over the book before anybody can read it. If it was a book signing, yeah, I'd agree. Shout all you like. But this is a seminar, a *talk*. I mean, it's in the damn name.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yeah and they came to talk... Which they did... Loudly... This isn't a freedom of speech issue at all. It's just a rudeness one. And we look stupid when we keep crying muh freedom of speech and muh censorship in situations like this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Yeah and they came to talk... Which they did... Loudly..." Surely you are being disingenuous?!
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @JAndViolentMob @notCursedE and
Seriously, the only conclusion to accepting the scenario you are supporting is violence. Shout louder than the other guys, and if that doesn't work, use aggression.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right... Which is why we invented formal discussion.. And that's why what they did is a problem.. Because they flouted the rules of formal discussion. Not because they were anti free speech at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I can't keep saying it depends what you mean by free speech. They were anti the very thing I am advocating but clearly not what you are. I'm about the exchange of ideas for the benefit of society. This is the principle I am defending.
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.