Got to be honest, I’m cringing at everyone who normally fights big tech censorship calling for someone to be banned from twitter. The truest test of someone’s belief in free speech is if they defend that which they find most contemptible.
It’s easy to defend polite speech.
It’s easy to defend polite speech.
It’s the “bad” speech that sets the bar though. It eases censorship into being acceptable.
To quote Chomsky, “If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
To quote Chomsky, “If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
When you ban the most abhorrent and hateful speech, you justify censorship, because “they deserved it”. When those people are gone, people who are slightly more moderate become the new fringe.... and the same justification can be used on them... and so on.
The freedom to offend is the most important part of 1A, in my humble opinion. Offense is subjective and the government, nor big tech, have no right regulating speech based off it.
