[latexr]

> I am, in fact, pro free speech.

You can be pro free speech and still not condone hate speech, or libel, or doxxing, or a myriad of other problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything in literally any context. Not, not even in the “land of the free”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

Additionally, XKCD reminds:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

> A problem with a subset of people who like free speech or something? I don't get it.

I don’t think those people particularly care about free speech, they just want to be able to say whatever they want with no repercussions. The more of a “free speech absolutist” they claim to be, usually the worse they are. It’s a common pattern to see those same individuals clamour for free speech in one post and then in another call for banning books or try to silence someone else.

[perching_aix]

The extreme and persistent refusal of people en-masse over the years to concede to this, and to insist with absolute certainty that any amount of filtering at all is straight up censorship and so they're now being repressed, has successfully made me give up on the idea of being "pro free speech". I sometimes wonder if that was the goal, both in the political sense, but also in the sarcastic counterexample sense.

[card_zero]

> It’s a common pattern to see those same individuals clamour for free speech in one post and then in another call for banning books or try to silence someone else.

But that's you, too:

> Free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything in literally any context.

It is of course different because they want to be free to say the bad thing and prevent others from saying the good thing, instead of the other way round like the true free speech advocates.

[latexr]

I think you’ll benefit from reading the Wikipedia links I posted. Your comment doesn’t make sense when you understand what free speech really means, and that curtains restrictions are a necessary, well-defined, and important part of it.

[card_zero]

You might be more specific. Something about the paradox of tolerance, maybe?

But anyway, you admit that your idea of free speech has restrictions, and their idea of free speech also has restrictions, but the difference is that yours are the necessary ones, by your values. Their restrictions are the necessary ones by their values, but their values are bad and wrong. I'm only being slightly po-faced here, I think this description of the situation is probably literally true, barring mistakes and room for improvement in the good value system and the outside possibility of adherents of the bad value system being occasionally onto something insightful.

[latexr]

> But anyway, you admit that your idea of free speech has restrictions

That is exactly why you should read the links. It’s not my idea of free speech. You have no idea what my idea is, because what I showed you is the definition. I didn’t make those up, I linked to sources.

What you are doing is conflating someone who understands what free speech is—and that its definition and application everywhere includes restrictions—and someone who hypocritically claims to be a free speech “absolutist” (i.e. literally anything goes) but then tries to silence the speech of others.

[card_zero]

Yes, but my point is, trying to silence the speech of others is part of free speech, and you and your sources have said so. So criticizing the absolutist for not being a consistent absolutist, when you don't even believe in any simple consistent rule, is petty.

There probably is a very general consistent rule to your/your source's idea of free speech, like "everybody's liberties should be curtailed only where they endanger the liberties of others". But implementing this leaves enormous scope for arbitrary and creative judgments. We can assume that your opponents, being wrong, have less internally consistent ideas, but even so the presence of exceptions in itself is nothing to be critical about if your own conception of free speech is nuanced. They may be following some logic too.

[camgunz]

> Yes, but my point is, trying to silence the speech of others is part of free speech, and you and your sources have said so. So criticizing the absolutist for not being a consistent absolutist, when you don't even believe in any simple consistent rule, is petty.

What bananas sophistry is this? All this person is saying is that contemporarily free speech absolutists tend to be hypocrites. Surely you aren't arguing that those supporting any limit on speech can't call out hypocrisy amongst free speech absolutists. Wouldn't this also be you limiting their speech? Are we incepting deeper and deeper into some kind of ironic morass of hypocrisy?

[nine_k]

> want to be able to say whatever they want with no repercussions

Rather, they want to be able to say anything to annoy people as much as possible, for the kicks.

Verily, it's important to be able to say annoying things: try speaking about atheism or a different religion in a devout crowd (capitalism among the "left", climate change among the "right", etc). But the intention is important. The intention of trolls is to enjoy other people's discomfort, not to voice an important idea.

Unfortunately, this is very hard to formalize.

[latexr]

Trolls exist, but they’re far from the majority. The people who shout “go back to your country” to fellow countrymen of darker skin colour on the street aren’t trolls.