A lot of debates that sell themselves as being about free speech are actually about power. And there's *a lot* of power in being able to claim, and hold, the mantle of free speech defender.
-
Obtaining such power is often, though of course not always, the explicit goal of those who seek to suppress speech. It's always true of authoritarian regimes, but it's also often true of efforts to suppress speech on a smaller scale, in political controversies for example.
There's one universal rule though: when people try to gain power by suppressing speech, they never acknowledge that this is their goal. The stated goal is always to protect some thing, or some group, from the malign influence of their opponents' ideas.
-
-
A thought: consider the possibility that exercise of free speech has a high cost. This means while in theory free speech is available to everyone, in reality only those who can afford the cost can exercise that right freely.
-
To the extent more speech correlates with more power, those with more speech then use the speech to perpetuate that power dynamic. No one is preventing the others from speaking freely, but they are unable to because they can ill-afford it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And when rich tech billionaires try to lobby for a world that benefits themselves, they neither acknowledge that this is their goal. The stated goal is always to create a better world.
-
You could state what exactly
@paulg lobbies for that benefits him. Instead of vague ominous accusations.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- End of conversation
-
-
-
@threadreaderapp please unroll - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Exactly. It's like when philosophers attack reason: it is always done to proclaim the supremacy of feelings
@TheNightlyMuse@BordenDaytime@benshapiro@RubinReport@EberhardDavid@Bardissimo@alex_seibar88@SRCHicks@Styx666OfficialThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If there exists in society a structural power imbalance, can't you make the argument that those with less power are morally justified in suppressing speech as a way of equalizing that power dynamic?
-
What is source of the structural power imbalance? It’s certainly not in the ability to convey opinions
- Show replies
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.