[jakelazaroff]

Isn’t that the crux of the issue? A lot of egregious hate speech — say, what Richard Spencer said in the recently leaked audio — is agreed upon by everyone but racists. But every time someone suggests censoring that, people invoke the same slippery slope fallacy. Today it’s the spam that gets censored, tomorrow it’s your voice!

[bena]

Because the criteria for deciding what speech gets censored is always subjective.

Sure, we can probably find one statement that most contemporary people would agree is wrong and shouldn't be allowed to be said. Like 99.99% of contemporary people.

But what percentage do we cut it off at? 75%? 30%? And why is it a popular vote to begin with? Is morality or ethics something that is relative to popular ideas or are there some concepts that are just plain right or wrong?

I'm not afraid of people saying stupid stuff. I'm afraid of people with the power to curtail speech. Because that invariably gets used against the public.

And "the freedom to do what is right" is not really freedom. You must have the freedom to do something stupid.

[jakelazaroff]

That’s my point. What’s the criteria for deciding what spam is? And yet no one complains when comments like “Wow! I made $X from my couch!” are censored — even though that’s every bit as subjective as Richard Spencer’s comments.