Because of what you put in parentheses, you don't believe in free speech. Even if we find something disagreeable, or morally repugnant, censorship is always wrong. ALWAYS. Freedom of speech is a universal ethical principle first, and a legal protection second.
Marianne Williamson
 @marwilliamson
31 Jan 2022
I'm triple vaxxed, but (unless they're standing for hate or calling for violence) banning someone's podcast is too much like burning a book to me. Joe Rogan should talk on his podcast about whatever he damn well pleases.
1
1
2
For you, perhaps.
1
No. For everyone. That's the whole point.
1
For you, perhaps.
1
Cute, but not an argument.
1
1
Replying to @VirtualAxiom
Yes it is. From Germany to Rwanda, there are plenty of examples of hate speech turning genocidal. For many of us there are limits to what's okay. That doesn't make us less principled; we just think there are some higher ones.

Jan 31, 2022 路 5:26 AM UTC

3
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
"For you, perhaps." is not the use of reason and evidence to support a position or demonstrate faults in an opposing position. Ergo, not an argument. Limits on what's morally acceptable is not the same thing as limits on what can be said. Any limit on speech is not free speech.
1
Speech turning to violence isn't a problem to be solved by limiting speech; You can say all the nasty things you want, and it won't inherently lead to violence. The problem there is people acting on bad ideas. The predisposition for violent behavior is the issue, not the words.
1
more replies
Replying to @marwilliamson @VirtualAxiom
In those cases, it was intense, daily hate speech driven by a media machine, not hate speech by individuals that just somehow got out of control.