Mike Solana

I’m not trying to be a smartass, honestly. I hear this kind of anti-censorship argument all the time (who on Twitter hasn’t?), but I rarely hear alternatives. Maybe you or one of your followers has some ideas?

the burden of proof is not mine. the obligation to make a case belongs first to those who would alter (dramatically, here) the existing system, and i have still not heard a coherent argument in favor of censorship.

One argument is that some people are too easily persuaded by bad faith actors in the marketplace of ideas, and those actors have an easier time than ever of being believed. And because that persuasion leads to all sorts of social maladies, censoring those actors is appropriate.

every outspoken politician in washington ascribes insidious, "hateful" motive to their political opponents. ambiguously defined, any law that would empower some kind of "hate watchmen" would be clearly a political weapon. and who watches the watchmen?

Anyone with HBO. (Ba-dumm tss!) But isn’t it easier and more effective to write an unambiguous law than it is to try to predict which of an extremist’s followers is going to shoot up a place of worship next?

No, it's not. Unambiguous laws are complicated and full of unintended consequences. You ought to read a law before you propose one. Really. Every government's laws are on the Internet. Try reading some before you blithely suggest that it's "easier" to write an "unambiguous" law.

I’m not saying it’s easy (nor am I being blithe), I’m simply pointing out that it’s far easier for stop hate speech from spreading than it is to prevent acts of violence once it has spread. We don’t disagree on that; we just disagree about whether the “easier” action is just.

I don't agree with anything you say. I don't even agree that your name is Matt Shaw. You're starting from a point of thoughtlessness, and that's not me. I shut up when I'm ignorant about something. You should try it. You'd be surprised by how powerful an idea it is.