This argument is a logical shambles. An appeal to "free speech absolutism" as a means of (via some sort of Darwinism) eliminating weak ideas and promoting strong ones, followed by a rejection of society's ability to ACTUALLY ENACT that Darwinism on demonstrably failed ideas (like fascism) via ostracism or censure, followed by a number of mysterious and ill-defined "common sense" caveats that, via a street magician's - or perhaps a con artist's - dexterity, miraculously dodge including ANY of the author's particular pet peeves.
Author,
How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "God Hates Fags" is protected but "harassment" (a category of speech you fail to define) is not? Does holding an event in my town to protest my existence not constitute harassment? Why wouldn't it?
How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "antifa violence" is prohibited because of a chilling effect on free speech, but nationalists showing up armed to events, saying "when we are empowered we will enact a genocide and eradicate you" is not? Are weapons only considered to have this effect when held by individuals you specifically detest?
I would hope that we can agree on the following: Any of these circumstances, when applied to an individual, would be obvious common sense violence and harassment, and would be considered to impede that individual's rights (including their right to free speech). For example, If your town allowed a "Fuck you Kyle and Becky" rally at which people held weapons and chanted "kill Kyle and Becky" and "Kyle and Becky caused all our problems" this would rightly be considered a threat to, and harassment of, Kyle and Becky.
Why does this simple, plain, and obvious truth vanish into vapor if I change it to "anyone whose name begins with K or B" or "anyone who is gay" or any other group? There are two reasons, and if you truly believe in free speech, you'll reflect on them-- but I wager that you won't.
First, you do not take a threat to a group very seriously, as you believe the more general threat is obviously unreasonable, a joke or an exaggeration. "Nobody REALLY hates all gays the way someone could hate Kyle." or "Hatred for gays shouldn't be taken personally, as if someone said they hated you specifically. You, the target of harassment and violence, must endure it."
Second, you do not take the members of the aggrieved group seriously, as you believe they are playing the victim for the special right to censure their ideological opponents. You're equating this to people who favor ranch dressing making it a legal offense to say "ranch dressing is not the best," rather than a demand for treating open and blatant threats and harassment as such.
You could consider why you so readily turn, by sleight-of-hand, the direct threat of bodily harm and suspension of personal rights into an "ideological" opposition or matter of opinion only when it concerns groups you specifically lack sympathy for. I believe, upon the slightest reflection, you would find your devoutly-held free-speech absolutism is a masturbatory exercise in performative pragmatism, and that in truth you simply wish opponents you have found personally annoying would be silenced and accept that silence graciously, while enveloping in sacred legal protection all of the causes you'd like to defend out of your misguided intellectual onanism... or perhaps out of your sympathy for the positions themselves.
This argument is a logical shambles. An appeal to "free speech absolutism" as a means of (via some sort of Darwinism) eliminating weak ideas and promoting strong ones, followed by a rejection of society's ability to ACTUALLY ENACT that Darwinism on demonstrably failed ideas (like fascism) via ostracism or censure, followed by a number of mysterious and ill-defined "common sense" caveats that, via a street magician's - or perhaps a con artist's - dexterity, miraculously dodge including ANY of the author's particular pet peeves.
Author,
How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "God Hates Fags" is protected but "harassment" (a category of speech you fail to define) is not? Does holding an event in my town to protest my existence not constitute harassment? Why wouldn't it?
How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "antifa violence" is prohibited because of a chilling effect on free speech, but nationalists showing up armed to events, saying "when we are empowered we will enact a genocide and eradicate you" is not? Are weapons only considered to have this effect when held by individuals you specifically detest?
I would hope that we can agree on the following: Any of these circumstances, when applied to an individual, would be obvious common sense violence and harassment, and would be considered to impede that individual's rights (including their right to free speech). For example, If your town allowed a "Fuck you Kyle and Becky" rally at which people held weapons and chanted "kill Kyle and Becky" and "Kyle and Becky caused all our problems" this would rightly be considered a threat to, and harassment of, Kyle and Becky.
Why does this simple, plain, and obvious truth vanish into vapor if I change it to "anyone whose name begins with K or B" or "anyone who is gay" or any other group? There are two reasons, and if you truly believe in free speech, you'll reflect on them-- but I wager that you won't.
First, you do not take a threat to a group very seriously, as you believe the more general threat is obviously unreasonable, a joke or an exaggeration. "Nobody REALLY hates all gays the way someone could hate Kyle." or "Hatred for gays shouldn't be taken personally, as if someone said they hated you specifically. You, the target of harassment and violence, must endure it."
Second, you do not take the members of the aggrieved group seriously, as you believe they are playing the victim for the special right to censure their ideological opponents. You're equating this to people who favor ranch dressing making it a legal offense to say "ranch dressing is not the best," rather than a demand for treating open and blatant threats and harassment as such.
You could consider why you so readily turn, by sleight-of-hand, the direct threat of bodily harm and suspension of personal rights into an "ideological" opposition or matter of opinion only when it concerns groups you specifically lack sympathy for. I believe, upon the slightest reflection, you would find your devoutly-held free-speech absolutism is a masturbatory exercise in performative pragmatism, and that in truth you simply wish opponents you have found personally annoying would be silenced and accept that silence graciously, while enveloping in sacred legal protection all of the causes you'd like to defend out of your misguided intellectual onanism... or perhaps out of your sympathy for the positions themselves.
Fuck that, dumbass. I ain't buying it.