• Ocelot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -22
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thats really the fundamental problem with free speech. Letting anyone say whatever their opinion means that “Everyone” includes morons and racists (who are obviously also morons)

    Not letting them have a platform means censorship. Letting them have a platform means hate speech. Tough nut to crack.

    • Veraticus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      421 year ago

      Why is it censorship? They can still talk anywhere that accepts them, including public property; that they can’t do it in my backyard isn’t censoring them.

        • Veraticus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          Interesting point. But are you willing to put your theory into practice?

          If you truly believe this, you must now end all your messages with:

          [email protected] said that free-speech maximalism is for fools but I disagreed because I am a fool.”

          If you don’t do this you are suppressing my speech and censoring me. And please don’t object on the grounds that the content is, perhaps, objectionable to some; remember, objectionable content is especially worthy of free speech protections.

            • Veraticus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 year ago

              Stop censoring me. I know you might find the content objectionable, but my freedom of speech demands you include that phrase in all your posts from this moment on. You aren’t going to suppress speech you don’t like or agree with, are you?

      • Ocelot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -541 year ago

        I think because X/Twitter is a public forum, not your backyard?

        • @givesomefucks
          link
          English
          401 year ago

          It’s not a public forum, it’s a privately owned social media website/app…

          The owners can kick anyone out they want.

          Musk knew that, but apparently didn’t know why the old owners kicked them out, it’s because the vast majority of advertisers and users don’t want them their.

          • @Zippy
            link
            -71 year ago

            Not saying he shouldn’t but it is a slippery slope.

            • @BrandoGil
              link
              51 year ago

              It’s not. Platforming speech is endorsing speech. I mean, there’s nuance to how it should be handled if someone says something you can’t endorse, but that sentence is rule 1 of owning social media platforms.

            • SatansMaggotyCumFart
              link
              21 year ago

              I agree.

              If you keep letting them have a platform next thing they’ll be building showers in their camps again.

        • @TheMusicalFruit
          link
          351 year ago

          It’s no more public than a shopping mall. The mall and Twitter are owned by a corporation or private entity so they can kick you out for any reason. They own the space, not the government. A public space is somewhere typically owned by the government like the library, town hall, roadway, or park. A common misconception is that anywhere people can freely enter is a public space, that’s not really how it works. If you think I’m wrong, go wave a Nazi flag and cause a disturbance at a mall and see how fast they kick you out.

        • Veraticus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          251 year ago

          In what sense is it public? It’s owned by X and no one else.

          People want to think it’s a public forum because a lot of people use it. But that doesn’t actually make it public.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      Everyone can say what they want, but contrary to what the MAGA idiots think, they have no right to free speech on someone else’s platform. They are free to make their own platforms and we can see from the great success of Truth Social and Parler how that works out.

      What “free speech absolutist” Musk is trying to do is limit the speech of the ADL outside his platform, and to prevent them from shining a spotlight on him and the Nazi cockroaches he’s invited back to Twitter. He’s not going to convince advertisers that having their company’s name appear next to Nazi content is a good thing, and IMO his attempted bullying of the ADL is going to end up driving advertisers away instead of bringing them back. Good.