[chomp]

I smiled at their George Washington quote; people who know George Washington's stance on free speech (e.g. his support for the Sedition Act) understand that he drew the line of free speech much more harsh than what we do today.

[amadeuspagel]

You must smile a lot if you smile every time someone quotes someone else though they don't agree with everything they've ever said and done.

[chomp]

Iron manning your own argument or appealing to authority are fallacious ways to make an argument. Boiled down, quotes usually are just propaganda.

It's funny because if you're going to indulge in fallacy to get your point across, at least appeal to the right authority. Only problem with that is it's pretty hard to find an authority that doesn't believe in some form of the harm principle. The closest I can think of is John Stuart Mill, who said, quote:

"Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough..."

Which is along the lines of the views pitched here... and Mill _invented_ the harm principle!

I do smile a lot. The alternative is a sinking feeling when I read sites like the one linked here that I personally feel like wouldn't exist if the creators embraced a little more empathy and understanding of natural rights.

[amadeuspagel]

Is the printing press compatible with this "harm principle"? With "natural rights"? Is the internet? Is wordpress? Would you deny the basic empathy of the people who created these things?

[chomp]

I’m not sure what your argument is. The technology you listed and nofilter are similar in that they are just tools. The creators are well within their rights to create anything they want.