| Using your reasoning, a bloody knife is illegal because it's "evidence of illegal activity". ...You've got some balls to lecture others on dishonest argumentation when you can't even honestly tackle the argument as I wrote it. One can cite or represent a bloody knife for shock value. In such cases, the implication is often clear. I suspect you're either misleading with the shocking implication, thereby having it both ways. Perhaps I misread your intention. However, your scenarios don't really make sense if one applies the "not a big deal" interpretations. Sure, there are situations where it's not a big deal to post a diary entry. In that case, why would anyone care and why would there be any censorship which would be considered "good?" It doesn't make sense. So are you suggesting that things you deem as morally reprehensible should be exempt from your "principle of Free Speech?" There is indeed a problem with speech devoid of principle, meant only to hurt someone. This is understood by the law. The purpose of Free Speech is to let people express grievances or objects with regards to principles. Morally reprehensible speech should be allowed, but it's not the purpose of Free Speech. Some subset of morally reprehensible speech would even be illegal, and therefore it wouldn't be protected as Free Speech. Again, it's you who brought up the nebulous extreme examples in the first place, with the purpose of having it both ways to justify censorship. |
I am not making any implications. My point here is very clear: your statement that the scenarios I described are illegal is false. It's as simple as that. Either way, it doesn't matter to the point I'm making.
> your scenarios don't really make sense if one applies the "not a big deal" interpretations
Whether you regard the scenarios as "extreme" is a subjective characterization that has no impact on the argument. I am arguing that censorship isn't inherently bad or wrong. I don't agree that the examples are extreme or illegal, but even if they are, they are still examples of content that could inadvertently end up on the internet; the point is the same no matter how it got there.
Even if someone broke into the house of a politician, assaulted them at gunpoint, and then stole sensitive political documents before posting them on the internet, the argument is the same. The voluntary censorship of those materials by platform owners would not necessarily be bad or wrong. In that extreme and illegal example, platforms might have a legal obligation to censor the materials as well, but that doesn't change whether or not doing so is bad or wrong.
> There is indeed a problem with speech devoid of principle, meant only to hurt someone. This is understood by the law. The purpose of Free Speech is to let people express grievances or objects with regards to principles. Morally reprehensible speech should be allowed, but it's not the purpose of Free Speech. Some subset of morally reprehensible speech would even be illegal, and therefore it wouldn't be protected as Free Speech.
Descriptions like "devoid of principle and meant only to hurt someone" is a subjective determination the likes of which sit at the heart of every free speech debate. As you already stated, in the context of "what is understood by the law" the point is moot since "illegal speech" is not "free speech" by definition unless you're arguing that the law is wrong or misapplied. Either way, speech that is "devoid of principle and meant only to hurt someone" is also legally protected speech in most cases.
> Again, it's you who brought up the nebulous extreme examples in the first place, with the purpose of having it both ways to justify censorship.
I did not "justify censorship", I refuted the statement "censorship is always bad". To characterize that as justifying censorship is dishonest.