[belltaco]

The right is anti-free speech too, for example I did not see anyone defending the govt take down of Jihadist and anti-American websites, even though they were just words.

They are only pro speech when it comes to misinformation and fake news that their side falls victim too, much more than the left.

[umvi]

> I did not see anyone defending the govt take down

If no one was defending the takedowns, then that means people generally weren't in favor of them

[belltaco]

Exactly. But if you read the GP's interpretation they're all about free speech. Where were the free speech absolutists where people's speech other than "their side" was affected? This makes me doubt if they really believe their own principles.

[chrismcb]

What govt takedown? Why would a for free speech person defend the takedown? As long as they aren't calling for violence I would defend an antiamerican website to say something. I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.

[shockeychap]

I'm not aware of which incidents you're referencing. Could you please cite examples of "government takedown of Jihadist and anti-american websites"?

I'll readily agree that we often argue about principles when it's our own content or people involved, and I see hypocrisy on both the left and the right.

But I have to give it to libertarians when it comes to consistent application of principles, even and especially when the specifics of a situation make them unpopular among the left or right. Conservatives find offense in the libertarian position on drug policy and media censorship of sex and violence. Leftists find offense in the libertarian position on economic policy, welfare, and immigration. Both sides find things to be offended about in their views on foreign policy. You know you're doing something right when you offend both ends of the political spectrum at the same time.

[belltaco]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg61516/html/C...

[vorpalhex]

Actual calls to violence are a clear line in free speech. Telling someone to blow up markets and commit terrorism is something everyone should be opposed to.

[belltaco]

There was a lot of speech other than direct and immediate calls to violence that were/are censored.

Regardless, if you read the GP's post, they're saying 'words' should never be banned. So I don't see the making an exception for even the kind of violent speech that you stated. Where were these free speech absolutists back then when their personal misinformation and racist speech wasn't being affected, but others' was?

Makes me doubt their principles.

[chrismcb]

Most free speech proponents agree that calling for violence is wrong. To ask extent encouraging others to break the law is wrong (to an extent, because I've way to get rid of an unjust last is to break it)