5 ms·

I consider myself a free speech proponent, but I do not feel comfortable with fines. Groups that defend/want to hear unpopular opinions should organize themselv

by guuz 9y ago

I consider myself a free speech proponent, but I do not feel comfortable with fines. Groups that defend/want to hear unpopular opinions should organize themselves to oppose hysterical speech and to guide the debate to a less aggressive rhetoric. Is it an ideal and distant solution? Maybe, but is better than official coercion. There must be a way, most people are not downright hostile to controversy. Edit: I do think that welcoming some ideas is a waste of time, or perhaps dangerous (fascism, for example). But I cannot see why Peter Tatchell is an imminent danger.

dgudkov 9y ago
>Groups that defend/want to hear unpopular opinions should organize themselves to oppose hysterical speech That's exactly how Charlottesville happened.
- guuz 9y ago
  No, it is not. One can easily destroy nazi-fascism without being apocaliptic, and I think that welcoming this ideology in universities is a waste of time, as I said earlier. The Charlottesville guys were not trying to engage in an educated debate or expose their opinions to scrutiny, their creed does not accommodate the very idea of dissent. Few among them [edit: previously " Few fascists"] are brave or patient enough to be civilized. Groups like theirs generally value shock tactics and its meeting was mainly conceived as a demonstration of power. Like-minded people, good or bad, will reunite and some groups will use the US free speech laws to propagate their hate and attract more followers. It is a very different scenario than polemic opinions being treated like a civilizational hazard in England (or elsewhere). Gay rigths, desegragation and many other ideas now taken for granted were once unpopular. History does not moves always forward and everyone that values freedom needs caution when considering politics regulating speech - they can be used for nefarious purposes or create unexpected precedents. [Edit: formatting and grammar]

by guuz 9y ago

dgudkov 9y ago

>Groups that defend/want to hear unpopular opinions should organize themselves to oppose hysterical speech That's exactly how Charlottesville happened.

guuz 9y ago
No, it is not. One can easily destroy nazi-fascism without being apocaliptic, and I think that welcoming this ideology in universities is a waste of time, as I said earlier. The Charlottesville guys were not trying to engage in an educated debate or expose their opinions to scrutiny, their creed does not accommodate the very idea of dissent. Few among them [edit: previously " Few fascists"] are brave or patient enough to be civilized. Groups like theirs generally value shock tactics and its meeting was mainly conceived as a demonstration of power. Like-minded people, good or bad, will reunite and some groups will use the US free speech laws to propagate their hate and attract more followers. It is a very different scenario than polemic opinions being treated like a civilizational hazard in England (or elsewhere). Gay rigths, desegragation and many other ideas now taken for granted were once unpopular. History does not moves always forward and everyone that values freedom needs caution when considering politics regulating speech - they can be used for nefarious purposes or create unexpected precedents. [Edit: formatting and grammar]