|
|
|
|
|
by Comevius
1353 days ago
|
|
Ah yes, the ol' free speech absolutism. You can't deal in absolutes when trying to solve complicated problems, never mind that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, or that free speech is meant to protect you from government censorship. Not everyone deserves a voice, but even if you do we don't have to listen. We don't have to tolerate intolerance either, we are perfectly free to not tolerate it, in fact we must. If you are curious who decides about who deserves a voice and who don't this is something they teach in high school, though not everyone receives civic education unfortunately. |
|
That's the 1st amendment of the US constitution, not "free speech". Since this is a United Nations report, the context is wider than just the US.
> Not everyone deserves a voice, but even if you do we don't have to listen.
Ah the old "we". Only in practice it's not "we" or "I" deciding not to listen, but some other entity deciding on our behalf what we're allowed to hear. Sometimes a government, but most often a multinational corporation. For most of the world, a foreign corporation.