It's interesting that the same sort of logic fuelling the people who want free speech bans on e.g. Milo was used with Nazi propaganda.
Conversation
Replying to
If you're seriously suggesting that your position can't be adequately defended by free speech...
...maybe it's because it isn't defensible?
3
Replying to
any rational conception of free speech recognises that there are reasonable limits. (harassment, incitement, malicious libel)
1
1
1
Replying to
. Concerning Milo in particular, there are some bugbears related to private companies & censorship, but it shows similar results.
1
Replying to
. One moment you're banning Milo, the next you're censoring Trump voters & opposition journalists in countries holding your stocks.
1
Replying to
the high level issue is that liberals understand that rights compete and need to be balanced, while radicals only see power
1
1
Replying to
. For me, the worst thing is when all sides on an issue are distorted past reason. Corporate censorship vs hate speech = bad axis.
Replying to
. It becomes like debating Seneca: "Of course you shouldn't arbitrarily execute your slaves. They're people like you."
Yes, but...