Without exception, “free speech absolutists” just want to say a specific brand of horrid shit themselves without social blowback. It never applies to free speech as a legal concept, and certainly never applies to speech they disagree with.
Without exception? No, I don’t think that’s true, it’s just the loudest ones, unfortunately.
For genuine free speech supporters like me, this is a problem because it makes the phrase “free speech” look bad and thereby contributes to a decline in it.
That’s why I specifically called out the phrase “free speech absolutist”.
In my experience the vast majority of people who truly do advocate for freedom of speech are willing/able to understand nuances such as the fact that your freedom of speech does not grant you immunity from the social consequences of unpopular speech. I.e., other people exercising their freedom to disagree or opt not to use their private platform to host your speech. The “absolutists” will unironically call that censorship, rather than recognize other people are not compelled to engage with their speech.
His stance on free speech has been well established for a long time now. He champions free speech so long as it’s his speech. Any speech that disagrees with him is, in fact, itself an affront to free speech.
So, he wants to make it so just criticizing Charlie Kirk is off limits, now?
Lol! Wut? I thought this guy told everyone he was a “free speech absolutist”. What a clown.
Without exception, “free speech absolutists” just want to say a specific brand of horrid shit themselves without social blowback. It never applies to free speech as a legal concept, and certainly never applies to speech they disagree with.
Without exception? No, I don’t think that’s true, it’s just the loudest ones, unfortunately.
For genuine free speech supporters like me, this is a problem because it makes the phrase “free speech” look bad and thereby contributes to a decline in it.
That’s why I specifically called out the phrase “free speech absolutist”.
In my experience the vast majority of people who truly do advocate for freedom of speech are willing/able to understand nuances such as the fact that your freedom of speech does not grant you immunity from the social consequences of unpopular speech. I.e., other people exercising their freedom to disagree or opt not to use their private platform to host your speech. The “absolutists” will unironically call that censorship, rather than recognize other people are not compelled to engage with their speech.
I prefer to think in these terms: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship
His stance on free speech has been well established for a long time now. He champions free speech so long as it’s his speech. Any speech that disagrees with him is, in fact, itself an affront to free speech.