https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful… As soon as you start allowing the gov’t to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it’s the actions that can arise from the words.
You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.
This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.
There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.
It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.
This isn’t about the paradox of tolerance; the paradox of tolerance refers to a social contract, not a legal framework.
You have the legal right to spew hate and vicious trash. You do NOT have the right to be free of social opprobrium should you do so. As soon as you start legally limiting speech based on what you think is acceptable, you create a legal framework for other people to do the same.
Nobody said it was a legal framework. I am applying the paradox to how we should frame it legally.
The rest of your argument was already covered in my post.
deleted by creator
This is a contradiction. Something isn’t a right if you allow open season for others to actively target and suppress.
Otherwise, Stalinism is also technically “free speech”: you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences.
Be clear about what you mean.
It’s actually perfectly simple and not contradictory as long as you don’t conflate basic rights and absolute impunity.
Having the right to say something abhorrent without the government punishing you for it ≠ having the privilege to say whatever you want and face no consequences.
Conflating the two to the point of censoring dissent is how fascism, anarcho-capitalism, Stalinism, and other inherently abusive ideologies that look attractive to some when not closely examined take root and thrive.
This is like saying guns don’t kill people
The tool you use to kill is irrelevant, because the tool has no intent. Mens rea is, with the exception of a very, very few strict liability crimes, a requirement for an action to be criminal. A tool can not have intent.
Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);
The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won’t get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.
I see you haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the news.
Thanks for the strawman, I see now you’re arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)
Oh, look, an ad hominem. Cool.
Firearms are not, themselves, the problem, despite however much people want to treat them as though they are. Likewise, in the UK, kitchen knives and scissors are not the problem, although the gov’t treats them as though they are.
Guns, knives, sticks, cars, and yes, even explosives, are tools. If you eliminate the causes that turn people to violence, you eliminate the use of the tools to commit violent acts. But no one is willing to discuss violence as a result of things like economic warfare or systemic racism; they insist that violence exists because the tools used in violent acts exist.
The discussion was never about the guns, dumdum (this, btw, is an ad hominem)
This you?
Automatic sentient guns, that’s what kills people.
Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others
Pull a trigger in the air without a gun, and see how many you kill.
The gun is an extension of the user - without the gun, you cannot shoot, just as without a person the gun won’t shoot.
Same is the case for words. They didn’t come out of the aether into existence, and when spoken carry the will of the speaker inherently.
It’s not “just words”, it can be malice or hate given form - that is, after all, the point of communication; to give form of what you desire or think to others.