[impossiblefork]

I don't actually say that we don't have free speech but rather that you never gave an argument that it isn't, and then I followed that up with that isn't obvious that we do have freedom of speech in practice.

There was the recent Varoufakis thing, there's all sorts of weird corporate censorship on the web, there's these laws about offensive speech in the UK, there's that weird thing where a politically controversial newspaper run by a Swede in Estonia had its bank account frozen (it was eventually unfrozen after a lawsuit, but that took time, and harassment strategies can harm a publication just as bans can), these arrests of anti-monarchy protestors in the UK-- all that stuff about blank protest signs etc.

There's so much weird stuff that it's not obvious that we have freedom of speech. We might, but I am personally not totally sure of the total situation, taking everything into account.

[mijoharas]

That's fair enough, and while I think we do have free speech I respect you saying that it's not obvious, and it's very possible I'd think the same on digging into the things you reference.

However, the main point I was making is that a refutation without evidence is a valid response to a statement made without evidence (which is what the comment you replied to was).

Having a higher burden of proof doesn't make sense to me.

[EDIT I just reread your comment, and noticed you said "you". I just wanted to point out it was someone else you were replying to before]

[impossiblefork]

My comment isn't complaining about a refutation without proof, but a refutation which claims something which if it were obvious would be shorter and simpler than the refutation.

An assertion without proof. You can deny it, but you can't respond with any essay about how the assertion is reprehensible.

[wrboyce]

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” – Hitchen’s Razor