[jmull]

> Free speech doesn't imply not being questioned or corrected

Right. That's why the post I responded to shouldn't object to calling this "stochastic terrorism" on the basis of free speech. In the immediate discussion the argument is inherently self-contradictory.

It also muddies the meaning of free-speech from a profound principle to a cheap argument to club people with online when they criticize something in a way you disagree with.

[worksonmine]

OP for that comment is arguing for free speech not against, you're misunderstanding the comment.

> "Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech

Implying the term is used to prevent free speech, and not trying to prevent the use of the term. I don't even understand how it's not obvious.

[jmull]

> ...not trying to prevent the use of the term. I don't even understand how it's not obvious.

The post says it's just an excuse to crack down on free speech, suggesting that it has no validity as an actual idea, that the term itself is invalid. Arguing that a term is always wrong is surely an attempt to prevent the use of that term.

What's more important to free speech.., that people can use the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a tweet where they think it fits, or that people should not have to be subjected to having their tweets called "stochastic terrorism"?

To me, it's pretty clear: if you're trying to police language, you shouldn't be using free speech as the justification for that.

[didntcheck]

It's quite telling that you don't seem to understand that someone might dislike some speech yet not want to ban it

[worksonmine]

You're bending over backwards to prove a point that's not there, but I don't care enough to go in circles forever.