This is going to get ugly.
ETA: I was wrong. It's already ugly. It is going to get much uglier.
I think I'm done trying to convince anyone that it's worth working toward a peaceable resolution. I no longer believe such a thing is possible, or that there's anything to be accomplished at this point, in arguing for it, save to make oneself a target for both sides.
We criminalize all sorts of speech, everything from libel to copyrighted works.
You live in a country under the permission of government. Never forget that.
> Let's ask a simple question:
Don't ever ask simple questions. It shows lack of thought.
You could equally and more accurately say government governs under the permission of the people.
> Don't ever ask simple questions. It shows lack of thought.
No, much better to dodge counter-arguments to which you are incapable of formulating a response.
Indeed, which is why we limit freedom of speech. These things don't happen without the public's approval.
This isn't the world where you get to do what you want. This is the world where you get to do what government (= the public in a democracy) allows you to do.
I'm sorry you thought otherwise.
I get the desire to defend free speech, but as everyone is already aware, several people have ALREADY died directly from this horrific and dangerous event, organized by criminals and terrorists.
Be thankful AirBnB has sided with safety.
Welcome to the real world, where people actually die as a result of the words they say, instead of "theory" world.
Oh, quite to the contrary. The citizenry of this country and its government are actually quite in agreement with me. That's why we have freedom of speech here - because we believe the principle outweighs the negative effects of subversive speech.
>I get the desire to defend free speech, but as everyone is already aware, several people have ALREADY died directly from this horrific and dangerous event, organized by criminals and terrorists.
So, we should ban anything capable of causing deaths? We don't ban cars. We don't ban airplanes. We don't even ban guns. Why don't we ban these things? Because we believe that the number of deaths they cause is acceptable relative to the value they provide. Yes, that's right. We callously calculate that cars are worth more to us than the thousands of people they kill every year. And if cars are worth that, freedom of speech is definitely worth the tiny handful of people who's live it may end annually.
We criminalize all sorts of speech, everything from libel to copyrighted works.
No, both of those definitely also involve criminal statutes.
Also, another example of criminalized speech is sedition.
And didn't some girl get convicted last week of convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide?
I don't even know why people think there's unlimited free speech...
We criminalize exactly one form of speech: speech that creates exigent danger. What are these 'many' forms that you speak of?
> You live in the real world, not a theoretical world. The problem with libertarians and other freedom-lovers is they have a simplistic model of the world that doesn't account for all the variables - they don't think their cunning plan through. Probably because they don't experience the world and have a limited understanding of people due to their lack of socialization.
Let's ask a simple question: At which point in US (or whichever country)'s history more than 70 years prior to today would you like to implement censorship laws? Maybe in the 1950s, before that pesky civil rights era? How about in the 1800s, before those slaves got themselves freed? Certainly, at those times, civil rights and abolitionism were dangerous, pernicious ideas worthy of censorship. But, surely, you have it all figured out today. You're smarter than them, right? You know what's right and wrong, so much so that you don't even need to hear the other side. This time it's different. /s