Ah! Perhaps this is it.Sometimes people think of freedom of speech as the law of their particular country but this is different to the principle,Laws around this only apply to government. I am speaking of individual commitments to advocating & promoting the free exchange of ideashttps://twitter.com/notCursedE/status/971307025773793280 …
Yes, we do. No-one is entitled to a platform but if someone has been given one by a roomful of people, they should not be prevented from hearing her because someone else dislikes the speech.
-
-
The difference is silencing one exchange as protest vs silencing the idea. Assassination of MLK, intimidation through violence, those infringe on free speech. There is not one platform to exchange ideas. There needs to be some wiggle room in this debate on what is "free speech"
-
Yes, don't silence any one exchange. You have no moral right to decide what other people may or may not hear even if their ideas are really unpopular and contrary to the dominant narrative. You can just not attend or attend and argue or attend & protest without silencing.
-
Here is my crux https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/971362662394286080 … Exchange of ideas is existential at best but, agreed, is best to have. However, no idea was silenced because 1. the ideas already existed 2. multiple platforms exist 3. it was temporary. No actual free speech was infringed upon.
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.