Again, no. I reject your absolutism. To say that someone is not a proponent of free speech because they don't believe those things are part of it is completely inane.
We will never agree on this topic. In the example you give, I do not see why either is acceptable, and I don't see why both are not a threat of violence. Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference.
You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups. Few people are going to stick around somewhere that those things are commonplace. Thus, that community is censoring and silencing other groups.
You can reject it all you want. You're still wrong. Free speech isn't speech you like. That's limited speech.
This isn't complicated. You wish to limit speech. That means you don't support free speech. It's okay to hold that opinion, even though I don't agree with you. You'd probably be better served if you were honest with yourself and others.
Twitter is not obligated to provide a platform of free speech. Which is good, because they don't. They are the exact opposite of free speech. Somewhere like voat.co is actually interested in free speech and, truth be told, they are as terrible as you might imagine.
But, coming in and saying that you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate? Save that for someone else. It borders on insulting that you think I'm that naive.
> you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate
Everyone wants to limit some speech. Do you support limits on fraudulent speech? Defamatory speech? Incitement to imminent lawless action? Speech that violates confidentiality obligations? Perjury?
Everyone agrees that some speech is so harmful it needs to be prohibited. The dispute is whether we should allow or prohibit speech that causes harms of a lesser degree; it is a dispute about what is the right balance between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to be harmed by speech.
Everyone is a free speech advocate (in that everyone supports people having some freedom to speak), and everyone wants to limit speech (nobody wants that freedom to be unlimited.)
If you will do me a favor, you can read all the comments that I've made in this thread. I have already explained that and answered those questions.
I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it. Just because it is legal doesn't make the speaker a good person.
I do not want to limit speech more than it already is. I'd like to expand it in a few areas. Specifically, they have been making use of free speech zones since the 1980s. This was done by the DNC. Yup. The DNC were the first to use free speech zones. Outside those zones, speech wasn't free.
Now, the front steps at the SCOTUS building are no longer a free speech zone. They moved the zone away from the public entrance. I want that fixed. I want all of them eliminated on property owned or paid for by the government. I want all public areas to be free speech zones.
I love me some speech. I really do.
I feel the same way about the government forcing me to house troops. I feel the same way about firearms. I can go on...
All lawful speech should be permitted. Nobody is obligated to provide a platform and nobody is objigated to listen.
Really, take five minutes and read my other comments. It will probably help. If you still have questions, I'll try to help.
I don't expect to change your mind, by the way. I just give you a point where you can pick a direction. These same rights I mention, they are also your rights. I am positive you say things that people think are offensive and hurtful. Well, you have that right. I aim to make sure you can keep that right.
> I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it.
Legal where? Speech that is legal in one jurisdiction is illegal in another. I live in Australia and you sound like you live in the US, and every country (and even states/provinces/etc within the same country) has different laws about what speech is allowed and what isn't.
The law is not fixed, it changes over time. (Even constitutionally entrenched laws, such as the US First Amendment, change, albeit more often by evolving interpretation than by textual amendment–however it is interpreted now, a future Supreme Court majority could always broaden or narrow that interpretation–and I'm certain that to some degree it will change.)
Part of the debate is not just what the law is (in whatever jurisdiction), but also what the law should be. Saying "I support all legal speech" doesn't do anything to answer the question of what the law should be.
In host country. Outside that, the user must follow their laws. The States don't have different speech laws. Not different enough to matter. Those get tossed when they get too SCOTUS.
If you read my posts, you'd see I already commented on what I felt about the current laws. They are right here in this big thread.
You just listed off a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that you support, so I'm not sure where you're standing here.
Is it your contention that the current collective US jurisprudence on free speech restrictions represents the platonic ideal of Free Speech, such that by defending it you are a "free speech absolutist"?
Some speech is considered unlawful and that I don't support. That is a longer subject, however.
I don't think we need 'free speech zones' at political rallies. The DNC started that. I don't like how SCOTUS moved the free speech zone away from the building. Things like that.
Lawful speech should be the default. Unlawful speech is afforded no such protections. I'm happy with those limits. Some speech is legitimately harmful.
Read the whoe thread. Even read the people I replied to.
I'm pointing out that your support of only speech that is currently considered lawful (and by implication, your support of restrictions on free speech that are currently codified into US law) means you are no more a free speech absolutist than the person you are arguing with.
It invalidates your entire argumentative posture throughout this thread IMO.
I don't think it's fair to claim KGIII's entire argument has been invalidated anymore than it's fair to characterize it as absolutist (b/c illegal speech was not supported in any of this thread by KGIII).
In the US, maximizing liberty is a priority, but minimizing violence is also a priority; so, these things both have to be considered. If Australia (or any other country) does not share this prioritization for liberty, that is up to their citizens. But, the US Constitution is still the law of the land here in the US, and no matter what those with authoritarian tendencies want for their countries, we will continue to prioritize liberty.
We will never agree on this topic. In the example you give, I do not see why either is acceptable, and I don't see why both are not a threat of violence. Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference.
You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups. Few people are going to stick around somewhere that those things are commonplace. Thus, that community is censoring and silencing other groups.