There's really little else to say to folks that don't respect others' right to speech they don't like or agree with.
The natural right to free speech is so important that it is explicitly called out in the very first of many constitutional amendments, which makes it fundamental to the USA.
It's really not unreasonable to refer to somebody who disagrees with this fundamental natural and human right, which has been a tradition in the USA, as being "anti-American".
Nobody has a right to be free from speech or ideas they disagree with.
Except some disagreeable speech is different than others, e.g., hate speech -- that is speech advocating violence towards classes of people.
And the right is very comfortable suppressing speech when it comes to their boogeyman du jour, "CRT".
That said, of course censorship is a dangerous thing but some "free speech" is also dangerous in itself. Right-wing talk radio and Fox have engaged in speech designed to cause division and hate in America. It's covert hate speech and I'm not suggesting that it be censored but it sure as hell should not be celebrated.
Driving cross-country with the radio on is a real education. Right wing talk radio is not "covert" hate speech. After 9/11, it became a safe space for outright racist calls for violence against Muslims and people of middle eastern descent. In the leadup to Obama's presidency, it became normal to hear racial slurs and calls for violence against black people. Usually not the host or their guests, but from a huge number of call-ins, and the hosts rarely cut off or even disagree with those callers.
Yeah, I was trying to minimize any sort backlash to my comment. It really is hate speech.
When people make assertations about free speech and "disagreeable" content it grinds my gears. It's one thing to say that Nickleback is the best band ever and another to say that all Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, and/or murderers.
I do understand that censorship is a dangerous thing, but we're also playing with fire by giving megaphones to hatemongers. It's my (obviously limited) observation that a solid chunk of the American public would be fine with exterminating "the others" if it was allowed to happen. That isn't by happenstance and it shows no signs of abating (quite the opposite really).
>> There's really little else to say to folks that don't respect others' right to speech they don't like or agree with.
Which has nothing to do with this case. It’s some people simply saying they won’t work with a company while it supports something they find unethical. Taking away somebody’s opportunity to use a private platform is not even close to taking away their right to free speech.
If siding with scientists against those who spread misinformation is considered anti American, then what's the definition of American? You are offending your own country.
Which guy? Assuming you mean Lofgren or Young, their decision to move on from Spotify as not to consort with misinformation peddling is nothing more than another expression of freedom of speech and choice. Sounds like you're for one side being able to express and not the other. Also, they're not saying Spotify doesn't have a right to roll with Rogan, in fact they're explicitly saying they have every right to do so. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from your neighborhood telling you you're an asshole.
11 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 35.3 ms ] threadThe natural right to free speech is so important that it is explicitly called out in the very first of many constitutional amendments, which makes it fundamental to the USA.
It's really not unreasonable to refer to somebody who disagrees with this fundamental natural and human right, which has been a tradition in the USA, as being "anti-American".
Nobody has a right to be free from speech or ideas they disagree with.
And the right is very comfortable suppressing speech when it comes to their boogeyman du jour, "CRT".
That said, of course censorship is a dangerous thing but some "free speech" is also dangerous in itself. Right-wing talk radio and Fox have engaged in speech designed to cause division and hate in America. It's covert hate speech and I'm not suggesting that it be censored but it sure as hell should not be celebrated.
When people make assertations about free speech and "disagreeable" content it grinds my gears. It's one thing to say that Nickleback is the best band ever and another to say that all Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, and/or murderers.
I do understand that censorship is a dangerous thing, but we're also playing with fire by giving megaphones to hatemongers. It's my (obviously limited) observation that a solid chunk of the American public would be fine with exterminating "the others" if it was allowed to happen. That isn't by happenstance and it shows no signs of abating (quite the opposite really).
Which has nothing to do with this case. It’s some people simply saying they won’t work with a company while it supports something they find unethical. Taking away somebody’s opportunity to use a private platform is not even close to taking away their right to free speech.