Thread by @ErrataRob

This is an exceptionally lazy argument on a platform known for lazy arguments. There are people who consistently oppose censorship on principle, whether it's censoring Trumpists, censoring terrorists, or censoring any other disliked group;

https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/1350125384692506624

For example, there's these (often sarcastic) tweets from me opposing censorship of ISIS:

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/712403798237564928

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/687092399806541825

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1108595892100259845

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/783483999264047105

Or, here's a discussion of the threat of Chinese censorship when Microsoft buys GitHub:

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1003397774908559360

Or, here's a discussion of SESTA (censoring sex workers):

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/941419360794669056

I also defend things that I don't think are censorship:

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1145046927421169666

Or just problems with censorship in general:

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1121088972854321152

Or a repeat of the same comment the lazy tweet criticizes:

https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1187058934399549440

The only "principles" you have are those you are willing to defend when they help the other side. If you only cite principles when defending your own side, it means your only real principle is defense of your own side.

In the current climate of suppression of right-wing speech, you see a lot of right-wingers pretending to oppose censorship who'll be the first to ague ISIS needs to be censored.

...but you also see civil libertarians who oppose censorship on principle, and who will defend that principle regardless of side. It's like when the ACLU defend the Skokie Nazi march. The only principles that matter are those you defend for the opposing side.