Now, you may or may not agree with his position (I certainly don't agree with some key aspects of it) but Randall is explaining what free speech is, not arguing for censorship.
The alt text is pretty thought provoking, too.
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" is one of the most infuriating lines I've ever had the displeasure to hear parroted. What else could it possibly be, but the general idea of not being punished for saying things? The only thing that matters to the principle of freedom of speech is those consequences.
Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter?
Funny, but not surprising, how even self-proclaimed leftists will side with capital when it's treading on the right people.
You might say "but you can't force people to platform/associate with those they find odious!", to which I reply 'of course you can'- there's laws against unlimited free association, with the argument that bulk group dynamics end up diminishing individual freedom on net.
You might say opinions are a different category from e.g. ethnicity, as they can be changed, while race can't.
In that case, in the future when we can change our bodies in a day, will it be alright if 'race', no longer existing as such, becomes as acceptably targetable as speech?
I actually agree with you. I think the narrow definition that "only the government has the ability to censor speech" isn't useful, especially in an age where some businesses, platforms and corporations have so much power.
I was just correcting the perception that xkcd had a comic "against" free speech (and because "he is a leftist"). It's not against free speech. The author clarifies what he thinks free speech is.
Some people apparently thought because I linked to a comic to correct someone's claim about that comic, that said comic represents my opinion. Puzzling.
I think the issue is complex, but probably related to its sister concept of tolerance and with "the paradox of tolerance" [1]:
> "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports free speech and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic version of "free speech" than you. Again, you cannot claim he is against free speech because he thinks corporate censorship is ok -- first, he doesn't exactly defend corporate censorship in his comic, and second, you're begging the question! You are claiming "corporate censorship" is against free speech, which is not a foregone conclusion and is exactly what is being debated.
Finally, the whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" angle only serves to inflame the debate with name calling. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.
I feel weird having to point all this out because I, in fact, think corporate censorship is against free speech -- my concept, not what whatever amendment says -- and in this day and age, it's even worse than state censorship.
Sure, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe someone supports, say, not destroying [something that they call "forests"] and at the same time believes rainforests can be cut down to make more room for farmland. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that they are using a definition of "forests" that does not include rainforests.
Nonetheless, that person is against not destroying forests-the-actual-thing, regardless of what definition they use for "forests"-the-english-word.
> The whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" only serves to turn the debate into an absurd flamewar. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.
Who are you responding to? Because if I had said something like that, it would have been "Randall Munroe is either a leftie or a rightie and, like all lefties and righties, is against free speech".
You pretty much ignored my reply, did a silly search & replace (ignoring HN's guidelines of assuming good faith and replying to the best possible interpretation) and decided to feel clever about it. Thanks, but no thanks.
> Who are you responding to?
Not you in that particular sentence, but user bonoboTP and others in this thread.
The idea of free speech is the ideas should succed or fail based on their ability to convince private actors tomhold and relay them.
Compelling actors to relay speech they disapprove of, unless those actors are the State or agents thereof, generally violates that principal.
Free speech is not an entitlement to third-party magnification of your speech, it is indeed the opposite: the idea that such magnification must be earned by convincing the party whose magnification is sought.
“People who disagree with me aren't relaying my speech or speech I like” isn't a violation of free speech.
I'm not Randall Munroe, how am I confusing anything by simply explaining he doesn't claim to be against free speech but rather is clarifying what he thinks free speech is?
I'm ok if you disagree with him, but please don't make claims about what I think, when I didn't say what I think.
I was replying to a comment arguing that xkcd doesn't support free speech because the author is leftist. I showed the author does support what he believes is free speech. That's all.
I was merely correcting the misconception that Randall Munroe from xkcd doesn't advocate for free speech. I didn't say I agreed 100% with the comic itself, though I do find parts of it thought-provoking.
Also, I never made a “guilt by association” argument, you inferred it. You just committed the fallacy fallacy. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
[citation needed]
"I'm sure the CCP thinks the same" is the laziest, weakest form of objection. You're not off the hook, you must still prove the idea being criticized is wrong regardless of what the CCP thinks about it.
(Like I pointed out in another comment, I think you've misread the alt-text, because it certainly doesn't support censorship).