People who think it's ok to harass/threaten/attack people because they don't like their speech are in the same boat as people who catcall/harass/stalk women because of the way they dress, because they use the same rationale: "they were asking for it by expressing themselves that way"
Different speech has radically different consequences. Are you saying zero speech should be met with violence?
If you feel the need to punch someone in the face for saying that abortion or illegal immigration is wrong, you need to take a serious look at your mental state, and not try to pretend in some abstract way that they are threatening your wellbeing in order to justify your violence.
I never said that, in fact I posted the opposite in the post you just replied to, where I demonstrated that some speech does have legitimate physical consequences. Your consistent misrepresentation of the posts in this thread make me think you are either trolling, arguing in bad faith, or genuinely don't understand what is being discussed.
The law is not the same as public consensus, and it does not have the same guidelines/requirements.
I don't support punching nazis, but that is not the same as deplatforming them
The rights are in fact more expansive than the laws which protect them. Hence just because something is legal does not mean it is not a violation of rights.
Many cases of 'deplatforming' are in fact a violation of the right to free speech. If a group of megacorps which own the systems we use to enact discourse and make a living decides to do everything to prevent you from using those systems, they are violating your rights.
Zero speech should be met with vigilante violence. Speech which is direct incitement should be reported to law enforcement.
No. No incitement to violence and criminal activity. However, people shouldn't engage in extra-legal censorship of media, unless they are willing to take on all of the responsibilities of a publisher. If an entity claims to be a "platform," there is precedent that Free Speech outweighs property rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Isn't that an infringement on my freedom of speech to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources?
I'm all for you getting on YouTube "to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources." But if YouTube is going to call itself a "platform," then it shouldn't be infringing on your right of Free Speech to do so.
Platform has never meant "open to everyone". You always have the right to shout racist slurs from your soapbox in the public square (at least until a police officer cites you for disturbing the peace or something), but don't expect to do the same in Joe's ice cream parlor and not get thrown out. Consequently, if you go into the KKK headquarters and start preaching equality, they have every legal right to have you kicked out as well
The link GP posted is literally about that, when "Joe's ice cream parlor" is actually the entire city, maybe you should.
Should Google be allowed to forbid criticism of Google on their platforms? I mean, perhaps - but it's hard to argue that there couldn't be consequences from that.
In the 20th century, here's how you could tell the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys forced you to agree. If there were inconvenient facts or opinions, they were suppressed and the people espousing them were coerced. By contrast, the good guys were open. They let people criticize them, letting their good deeds speak for them. The bad guys destroyed lives just to get their way. Here's the thing: The good guys and the bad guys weren't properly defined by their flags. They weren't confined to particular geographic areas and constrained by borders. The good and bad were defined by the above actions.
So let's apply that to the present day. How does Google behave? Are they the kind of people who would suppress opinions they don't like? Are they the kind of people who would do something intellectually dishonest, like leave out the references? Are they the kind of people who would be the opposite of open, and use superior force to get their way?
Indeed, it's hard to argue that there couldn't be consequences from that. The arc of history is long, and it bends towards justice.
If you think it should not have vetos, then any (legal) topic is acceptableº, and "Free Speech" is the bedrock of discourse. Since discussions and decisions are held in public, people may find them painful.
If you think it should have vetos, then anyone may declare a topic unacceptableº. Not triggering a veto becomes the key to productive discourse. As one cannot veto what they haven't heard about, many controversial discussions and decisions are made in secret.
º Mechanisms for punishing unacceptable speech range from social isolation through economic isolation and finally to physical isolation.
That's not a free market of ideas. That's a free-for-all. That's Gandhi's, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world blind."