I have never supported “free speech,” just as the Founding Fathers never did. Speech which destroys the nation (physical, of blood) can never be free, and thus must be forbidden. Speech which confounds also cannot be allowed to exist, because it solely drives people to objectively wrong conclusions. Speech which denies truth can’t be abided, because said speech is contrary to nature itself and can afford no one any meaningful discussion.
This is a relatively shallow way of looking at it and contrary to what the biggest free speech advocates believed.
Even clearly wrong ideas have merit in being expressed. But that’s happened here, quite enough already.
There is no merit to FE, or any further discussion of it.
Read the JSM essay “On Liberty”. It’s easy to find and free.
He would have advocated banning FE content because it’s not true speech at all. It’s not being put out there for legitimate debate or even security, or pursuit.
It’s a disruptive act, a psyop. that’s aimed at disrupting free speech that poses a political threat.
It’s a speech act. Just like you don’t have the right to go forment a riot with your speech… because that’s about an action, an end goal that is destructive and not about expression itself.
This is a relatively shallow way of looking at it and contrary to what the biggest free speech advocates believed.
I mean, again, I’m not an advocate of free speech.
Even clearly wrong ideas have merit in being expressed.
If only to show the shadow they cast, thereby outlining what truth might actually be. Yes, I can understand that.
But that’s happened here, quite enough already. There is no merit to FE, or any further discussion of it. [Mill] would have advocated banning FE content because it’s not true speech at all. It’s not being put out there for legitimate debate or even security, or pursuit. It’s a disruptive act, a psyop. that’s aimed at disrupting free speech that poses a political threat.
I have never supported “free speech,” just as the Founding Fathers never did. Speech which destroys the nation (physical, of blood) can never be free, and thus must be forbidden. Speech which confounds also cannot be allowed to exist, because it solely drives people to objectively wrong conclusions. Speech which denies truth can’t be abided, because said speech is contrary to nature itself and can afford no one any meaningful discussion.
This is a relatively shallow way of looking at it and contrary to what the biggest free speech advocates believed.
Even clearly wrong ideas have merit in being expressed. But that’s happened here, quite enough already.
There is no merit to FE, or any further discussion of it.
Read the JSM essay “On Liberty”. It’s easy to find and free.
He would have advocated banning FE content because it’s not true speech at all. It’s not being put out there for legitimate debate or even security, or pursuit.
It’s a disruptive act, a psyop. that’s aimed at disrupting free speech that poses a political threat.
It’s a speech act. Just like you don’t have the right to go forment a riot with your speech… because that’s about an action, an end goal that is destructive and not about expression itself.
I mean, again, I’m not an advocate of free speech.
If only to show the shadow they cast, thereby outlining what truth might actually be. Yes, I can understand that.
Absolutely. Hear hear.