This is badly written, among other things.
The problem is that, as written, the second clause clearly reads as "If you don't hate what they stand for, then you don't believe in free speech," when what's obviously meant is "if you don't believe in free speech for people even if you hate what they stand for."
But anyway.
But anyway.
The problem with many free speech defenders is that they frame criticism and offense and withdrawal of social capital as an attack on free speech.
It's not. It's just criticism. Criticism is ... free speech.
It's not. It's just criticism. Criticism is ... free speech.
I believe in free speech. So I think you should be able to say any offensive thing you want without being arrested or prosecuted.
I also think people get to understand you as somebody who says those sorts of things, react accordingly, and tell you about it.
More free speech.
I also think people get to understand you as somebody who says those sorts of things, react accordingly, and tell you about it.
More free speech.
The problem with framing criticism or even social consequence as anti-free speech is, it's an anti-free speech position.
The more perspectives have a voice, the more dominant perspectives will become subject to criticism and consequence.
More free speech, not less.
The more perspectives have a voice, the more dominant perspectives will become subject to criticism and consequence.
More free speech, not less.
In fact, these dominant perspectives will, as free speech grows, become subject to the same sorts of criticism and social consequence that more marginalized perspectives were always subject to... from the dominant perspectives.
More free speech, not less.
More free speech, not less.
What is being objected to in all this talk of an age of outrage, or "social justice warriors," or "wokescolds," is not an objection that free speech is shrinking, but that it is growing.
More people in the room. More voices have the microphone.
More free speech. Not less.
More people in the room. More voices have the microphone.
More free speech. Not less.
We know this because the concern is never about the merits of the complaint, but only the complaint itself. Not even the complaint--the complainer.
Gervais scolded the Golden Globe nominees to not give political speeches.
Less free speech, please. Not more.
Gervais scolded the Golden Globe nominees to not give political speeches.
Less free speech, please. Not more.
So, if you are Ricky Gervais, and you've said something that somebody's found offensive, and they've told you about it, and because of your unwillingness to hear them they now think things of you you find uncomfortable, I can only say this.
Oh, we're sorry. Have we OFFENDED you?
Oh, we're sorry. Have we OFFENDED you?
