Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

7

@RustyCrab @scathach It's not an apriori thing as such, it's a doctrine with a specific goal: to prevent power from leveraging an ability to control communication (and therefore thought) into a destructive tyranny.

in edge cases there's room for interpretation but the overall intent of it is pretty clear and useful.

@bajax @scathach its "useful" but its not at all clear. When people say that they normally mean "freedom from consequences" which does not make sense in any world. The law is full of exceptions on this and discussions always fall into "well THATS not free speech thats..."

my point is its a nonsensical concept to try and work around the reality that two groups with irreconcilable differences should probably not be living together

Replies

5
@mirq @bajax @RustyCrab @sun @scathach
Fascists aren't radicals, but how can radicals "by definition" be opposed to free speech? I haven't read anything in Marx or other major left wing thinkers to support suppression of speech. Free speech is thought of more as a liberal virtue but I don't see it as being at odds with leftism. Historically it's very much the right wing that has a problem with free speech
@sampler @bajax @RustyCrab @sun @scathach
How are fascists not radicals?
To your other point, the ussr was very big on limiting speech (including but not limited to music and movies) by inflicting punishment (including but not limited to gulag time) for it.
Either you don't believe the ussr to be leftist/striving for leftist ideals or you don't believe that they limited speech, otherwise your dismissal doesn't make much sense

My belief is that people with extreme and strong beliefs all unanimously prioritize the enstatement of whatever their belief system is over free speech, because the latter can and will very often present obstacles to the former