The power of free speech has increased exponentially in the past two decades. Ordinary people are no longer restricted to expressing their opinions to a handful of close acquaintances.
With this in mind, one could run the following argument that there's nothing wrong with dialing back our ability to be heard to something closer to what we had in the late 20th century:
1. We had less free speech in the late 20th century than we have now.
2. There was nothing wrong with the amount of free speech we had in the late 20th century.
3. Thus there is nothing wrong with having less than we have now.
In any event, the question is not whether to restrict what people can say to their friends and colleagues in ordinary conversation. Nobody is seriously suggesting that. The question is whether to restrict people's ability to organically cultivate an unlimited following using social media.
Apr 29, 2022·edited May 1, 2022Liked by Jimmy Alfonso Licon
There is no such thing as "too much" free speech in a free society. If we lose it, we lose everything. We must not allow this new govt "truth" squad to be implemented. Call your representative while it may still matter.
The problem is “preference falsification” of the majority via censorship, coercion and duress inflicted by the minority / elite / deep state.
People are free to speak, just not free to an equal opportunity at being heard due to ideological filtration methods (deplatform, ghosting, classification, etc)
Legally, I think we have the right amount of free speech by and large. Politically, the issue seems to surround what constitutes the right to free speech. The ability for Twitter to censor certain viewpoints seems to be an exercise of free speech, rather than the lack thereof. Twitter is a private company, and they are sending a message that certain viewpoints aren’t welcome on their platform. The desire to inhibit a private company from using their own platform to express their own viewpoint seems to be an anti-free speech position, regardless of whether Twitter’s censorship is the morally correct decision. Twitter may be intolerant, but that doesn’t mean any individual rights have been violated. We seem to have a decent supply of free speech, but tolerance of different viewpoints, that’s another story.
Sunny Houstin says that free speech (on twitter) is bad because it is only for "straight, white men." A good epistemological heuristic is that anything Sunny Houstin states on The View is false. Therefore, we need more free speech. lol
The power of free speech has increased exponentially in the past two decades. Ordinary people are no longer restricted to expressing their opinions to a handful of close acquaintances.
With this in mind, one could run the following argument that there's nothing wrong with dialing back our ability to be heard to something closer to what we had in the late 20th century:
1. We had less free speech in the late 20th century than we have now.
2. There was nothing wrong with the amount of free speech we had in the late 20th century.
3. Thus there is nothing wrong with having less than we have now.
In any event, the question is not whether to restrict what people can say to their friends and colleagues in ordinary conversation. Nobody is seriously suggesting that. The question is whether to restrict people's ability to organically cultivate an unlimited following using social media.
There is no such thing as "too much" free speech in a free society. If we lose it, we lose everything. We must not allow this new govt "truth" squad to be implemented. Call your representative while it may still matter.
The problem is “preference falsification” of the majority via censorship, coercion and duress inflicted by the minority / elite / deep state.
People are free to speak, just not free to an equal opportunity at being heard due to ideological filtration methods (deplatform, ghosting, classification, etc)
Legally, I think we have the right amount of free speech by and large. Politically, the issue seems to surround what constitutes the right to free speech. The ability for Twitter to censor certain viewpoints seems to be an exercise of free speech, rather than the lack thereof. Twitter is a private company, and they are sending a message that certain viewpoints aren’t welcome on their platform. The desire to inhibit a private company from using their own platform to express their own viewpoint seems to be an anti-free speech position, regardless of whether Twitter’s censorship is the morally correct decision. Twitter may be intolerant, but that doesn’t mean any individual rights have been violated. We seem to have a decent supply of free speech, but tolerance of different viewpoints, that’s another story.
Sunny Houstin says that free speech (on twitter) is bad because it is only for "straight, white men." A good epistemological heuristic is that anything Sunny Houstin states on The View is false. Therefore, we need more free speech. lol