Maybe they think they will get to decide what is said?
-
-
-
Yes! This is precisely the issue that we miss when "educating" people. Free Speech can only exist if ALL speech is free. Terms like "political speech" and "hate speech" can have different meanings to different people. If it's regulated, who gets to be the "Speech Czar"?
-
Yes, and you only believe in free speech if you do not drown out dissenting voices with noise
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Free speech is the only answer to dogmatism and the issues that arise because of free speech. It’s one of the few things that solves its own problems and creates a net positive outcome for society.
-
Free speech is the way we think. To paraphrase
@jordanbpeterson, it's better for an idea to die than for a person to. If we don't let our ideas fight with each other, then eventually our persons will fight with each other. I vote for the former. -
Well put.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Giving bad (fake) medical advice while posing as a medical professional is free speech? Get a clue.
-
There have been plenty of examples of “good” medical advise turning out to be “bad” advise. This is not a free speech issue.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I read the article as an argument Conservatives are using the First Amendment as an argument for certain policy/judicial decisions. It's been the best con-job of conservatives. One's freedom of speech often is another's silencing.
-
How does my right to speak lower the volume of your voice even one tiny bit? If you have a better argument, then make it. in 2018 your voice can be amplified 1,000,000x thanks to Twitter, Facebook, etc. The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, its more good speech
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If Pinker is for free speech, why would he be unhappy with the article on Karl Marx? Pinker was for free speech until he was against it?
-
Even if you are talking about free speech principles rather than how those principles apply to the law, there is a big difference between criticizing a publisher for what they publish, and trying to censor a publisher.
-
If you think ANYONE’S serious defense of free speech needs to exclude the act of public criticism, then you have completely lost the plot.
-
Yes, I'm aware of that. The problem is the two concerns that Pinker brought up clearly contradict one another. If Pinker had a problem with the content of the first article and not that the NYT published it, he, at a minimum, should have made that clear.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not a MAGA man, and I'm damn near a Never-Trumper, but her is why I'm actually - gulp - glad he's President. Here's to another Originalist SCOTUS appointment!

-
Agree on the court, but there is no reason for any American to not want to
#MAGA -
You know what I mean

-
Know what I mean. Despite my personal distaste for the man, he may well be the best president since Reagan, and might even surpass him if it were not for the obstructionism and virtual sedition practiced by the left.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’d add: The NY Times shameful coverage on the Catalonian secessionists crisis
-
No kidding! Total nonsense crafted from stereotypes of citizens of Spain!
#Anglocindescension
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.