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 …
-
Show this thread
-
5 replies 3 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You're missing or at least need to address that there is never unanimous consent and competing ideas often are not filtered on their moral merit. There is an intersection b/w protesting established ideas while offering opposing ones. A battle of neutral ground with fluid rules.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HereInThere @HPluckrose
Not defending the actions of the few protesters but "free speech" narrative is scapegoat. An NFL player can't kneel during the National Anthem. Protests must be orderly and out of the way. Historically the most effective have always been the most rambunctious. Where is the line?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HereInThere
That doesn't prevent anyone from speaking. The line is at stopping people from hearing a speaker they have invited to speak.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
We have more "free" or unfiltered speech available to >% of the population than ever in the history of civilization. There is no one platform to present ideas and the ideas protested here are not novel. Even those like ISIS have plenty of platforms to spread their speech.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HereInThere @HPluckrose
My point is we need to distinguish between the actual limiting of free speech and the human right to protest a known idea someone find repugnant. I'm not defending their actions! But the conversation seems flawed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HereInThere
That's my point too. I support protests which don't prevent speakers from speaking or audiences from hearing the speaker they have invited to speak. That's the distinction. The people who protested at the event I did a couple of weeks ago, walked out & damaged the sound system.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
The walking out is fine but the damage to the sound system was an attempt to ensure that 400 people who had come to hear us could not do so. That was in opposition to the free exchange of ideas & diversity of ideas which underlies liberal society.
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.