Thread by @AG_Conservative

So let's talk about free speech:

Supporters of fewer speech restrictions (like myself) argue that the most effective way to deal with truly bad speech is to counter it with good speech (instead of banning it). That's why we oppose even banning indisputably awful speech.

However, for that argument to win-out, good people have a responsibility to actually counter bad speech. If good people are silent when it comes to bad speech or try to justify it, then the argument no longer makes sense.

That's why when a popular artist is supporting and promoting one of the leading bigots in the country, silence or justification is inexcusable from people who claim to actually care about fewer restrictions on speech.

foxnews.com/entertainment/…

If your reaction to someone promoting bigotry (even if you disagree with the bigot being banned from certain platforms bc you view that as a slippery slope) is to cheer it on or excuse it, you're part of the problem. You're no longer defending speech, you're defending bigotry.

As for the topic of social media bans: These platforms have proven terrible at policing speech. I think them trying to police speech is bad. At the same time, they are private companies. Gov't intervening is not a solution and will/can only lead to more restrictions/bans.

If people feel that these companies have gone too far, the solution is to challenge them. If they ignore dissatisfaction from their users, people will move on to other platforms. People forget these platforms are young. The barriers to entry are high, but they aren't invisible.