Why should that be clear? Judging them by their actions rather than their words, it's quite plain that "free speech extremists" are no such thing, except inasmuch as it applies to them. They demand to be free to say whatever they like, and they demand everyone else be required to listen while they do it.
They ARE free to say whatever they like; their problem is that they then have to face the consequences.
I mean I can say whatever I want on this platform as well, but if I cross a line my posts will be hidden and eventually my account blocked. And that is fair, it's what I agreed to, and not only that but it's morally just.
The free speech extremists confuse freedom of speech with protection from consequences.
Interestingly, Trump and some other celebrities on Twitter have had special protection from said consequences.
I mean by that logic you could say that China has free speech but anyone who speaks out against the government just has to 'face the consequences' of being put in prison.
> Companies do not have the power to throw people in jail or legally kill with a military.
Blackwater is a private enterprise and arguably is able to legally kill (and is in a sense a form of private military). Beyond that obvious example, private police agencies have existed in the US for some time.
A lot of people don't like the idea of these social media (i.e. ad-tech) companies trying to influence public opinion, especially when these platforms initially billed themselves neutral parties.
> They ARE free to say whatever they like; their problem is that they then have to face the consequences.
Specifically, the consequence of other people exercising the same freedom of speech, including by deciding not to relay certain speech of the self-styled “free speech” advocates.
The definition of free speech that stormfront likes is also the one that the supreme court has upheld and that is necessary for a thriving marketplace of ideas.
Bad, ignorant, hateful ideas are bad because they are wrong; if they were true, you would not call facts "bad". That being the case, the correct response is to defeat them with truth-- not censorship, whether state or privately enacted. Censorship is just admitting that you dislike the ideas but cannot argue them down with reason and are resorting to the cudgel.
But we do. Any facts that cast certain religions (but not others!), or certain lifestyle choices (but not others!) in a bad light are considered _____-ophobic. Bad.
Facts are routinely politicized and made out to be evil.
> Censorship is just admitting that you dislike the ideas but cannot argue them down with reason
This is true. And this is why it is so hard to have an honest debate. Many people in the United States (perhaps elsewhere?) think with their feelings, and not facts or reason. The videos of people screaming over the top of presenters on college campuses are case-in-point.
The world as a whole is marching towards the cudgel. Hate speech laws are a manifestation of this. What remains is the removal of an individual's right to defend their life. After that we have tyranny.
==The world as a whole is marching towards the cudgel. Hate speech laws are a manifestation of this. What remains is the removal of an individual's right to defend their life. After that we have tyranny.==
In my view, the most powerful person in the world unilaterally shutting down companies he disagrees with is much closer to tyranny.
> But we do. Any facts that cast certain religions (but not others!), or certain lifestyle choices (but not others!) in a bad light are considered _____-ophobic. Bad.
Facts are routinely politicized and made out to be evil.
So true! People should consider why we call politically correctness that. We don't call them facts or truth, but that they can be said and not hurt "feelings".
the Supreme Court certainly has not upheld compelled speech. And internet theories about private services as de facto public forums continue to be defeated in court (PragerU v Google being the most recent example).
See also the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on whether or not free speech applies on a private platform (spoiler: it doesn't).
"Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment," the court said."
Ok I'll bite: how is "you are free say what you want but you may have to face a firing squad" and different in experience to "you cannot say any of these things, if you do you will face a firing squad" ?
The whole POINT of 'free speech' is that there are no consequences.
(And no you shouldn't be allowed to shout 'fire' in a theatre).
> Ok I'll bite: how is "you are free say what you want but you may have to face a firing squad"
That's not the consequence here.
The consequence is “other private parties might choose not to relay your speech or continue association with you, exercising their own rights to free speech and association.”
Me not allowing you to use my resources to magnify the reach of your message isn't analogous to the state subjecting you to capital punishment.
> The whole POINT of 'free speech' is that there are no consequences.
No, the whole point is that the state doesn't have their thumb on the scale, allowing ideas to succeed or fail by their ability, or not, to attract support from private actors. Legislation in which the state intervenes to prevent private consequences through the exercise of free speech are not only on their face contrary to free speech, but sabotage the operation of the marketplace of ideas.
Your last two statements contradict one another, but also make clear that you recognize your appeal to absurdity for what it is. Do you think no one else will?
