The problem with 'free speech absolutism' is that even when people mean the above, it will be taken as the right to say anything at all, anywhere, in any context with any direct & material effect. Like conspiracy, harassment, slander, perjury, treason, breaking confidentiality
-
-
Show this thread
-
The protection of freedom of speech is the protection of the right to hold & express any idea. Its absolutism is on the level of ideas. It opposes any attempt to pick and choose which ideas are OK and which are forbidden because of what they are.
Show this thread -
This is the default. Any denial of this in any context needs a justification other than 'That idea is horrible.' And these are many & reasonable:
Show this thread -
eg: You may not say non-Christians are going to hell to your 6 year old students because: You're employed to teach maths. This is psychologically abusive. You do not have their parents consent. The school's policy is inclusive or secular.
Show this thread -
The opinion that non-Christians are going to hell has not been banned because of what it is and its potential to offend/hurt/frighten people. It may still exist & be expressed in very many other places.
Show this thread
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.