[bigfishrunning]

Let's take the opposite approach -- should schools stock back-issues of "Hustler" magazine? What about the "Anarchists Cookbook"? should we print it and put it on the shelf of a middle school?

You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it a good idea to stock a school with it.

[epistasis]

I'm asking about "absolutist" and it's meaning. You replied with something different, about which books should or should not be in a school library.

What does "absolutist" mean to you if you think that limits to what's in a library are a "good idea"?

Remember, I'm not talking about whether there should be limits or not, I'm asking about your self-description of "absolutist" and why absolutism still has fuzzy definitions of what is allowed or not.

[bigfishrunning]

There's a difference between allowing you to say something and hiring you to say it to my kids.

[epistasis]

Got it, you have made that abundantly clear (and not that it matters but I agree.)

Again: how is your belief in this compatible with being an "absolutist"?

I don't know how I can phrase this more clearly, yet you repeatedly doge the question.

[bigfishrunning]

You are allowed to say absolutely whatever you want, Write it down, and sell that material without fear of repercussion. I don't know how to be more clear about this.

[ModernMech]

You are both completely clear yet not understanding one another.

Let me try to break the deadlock: epistasis is getting at the fact that you can't call yourself an "absolutist" on free speech because your position is not absolute, but qualified -- all speech is free except speech you find problematic, which shall be regulated. That's pretty much everyone's definition of free speech, not an absolutist take.

An absolutist would say there should be absolutely no content-based restrictions on what is in the library regardless of the ages of the patrons. Hustler, Anarchist Cookbook, whatever. They might justify that by saying "free speech is so important we can't place any limits on it. If you as a parent find the idea your child might access speech you find distasteful, it's up to you to prevent your child from seeing it, not the library or the government".

> without fear of repercussion

Let's say you write a book about being a kid and finding it uncomfortable to grow up who you are. You're free to write it, free to talk about it, free to to sell it. But then the government adds your book to a list of books they deem "pedophilic and a danger to children."

Do you think you would be free from repercussions from the government publishing your book on the harmful to kids list? Can free speech thrive in such an environment?

[epistasis]

The government banning your book from a school library is clearly a repercussion. That's what free speech has always been about, limit the ability of the government to enact repercussions.

What is "absolute" about this?

Do you want your own speech to be absolutely free of repercussions to you, be they government or not? Is that it? I really have trouble trying to put some sort of consistent framework in this, unless it's dividing the world into two classes of people: those who will not experience repercussions and those who will experience repercussions for their speech.

[komali2]

There's not really anything in the anarchist cookbook that isn't everywhere on the internet at this point, or even youtube.