[ SECRET POST #3003 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3003 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #429.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

What I think I would invoke here is the old principle that "simply because you have a right to say something does not mean that it is right to say."

GGers have a right to say what they say (at least until the point when it becomes harassment and death threat and that kind of thing). However, they ought not say it, as it is harmful and stupid, and also (and separately) because the specific things they are saying are intended to impede the reasonable exchange of ideas by forcing certain people out of the public sphere because of the opinions they hold.

I don't think that's a particularly hard line to draw.

[dethtoll]

I don't really disagree.

[(Anonymous)]

But I would argue that conflicts with the "free speech means dealing with the consequences of free speech" argument. Because it is technically true, and technically a rejoinder to people crying about free speech. But, I think, if taken seriously it involves you in other problems. Like having to defend shitty stuff. Not just as legally permissible but as unobjectionable.

[dethtoll]

I don't think it really conflicts, though, and IMO you're reaching by saying that it necessarily means defending shitty stuff as completely unobjectionable.

People have the right to say whatever idiotic shit their brain comes up with (within reason of course, cf. hate speech laws or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.) SHOULD they say it? No, of course not. It's idiotic and offensive and objectionable. But "shouldn't say" is a long way from "not permitted to say."

So if some hooplehead wanted to rant about Jewish mushrooms controlling the government and the fury in his pants, it's a completely indefensible view of course but it's not the content that's being defended here, it's the expression. (I hope you follow me.) And of course his right to free speech doesn't preclude others from exercising THEIR right to free speech and telling him to fuck off back to reddit. It also doesn't preclude them forcibly ejecting him from whatever private space he's spewing his trash in.

Ultimately the triumph of free speech is that A) it serves as an easy moron/bigot/etc. detector and 2) free speech can and does continue to grow and affect change even if you factor for things like hate speech laws and mass negative reaction to unpopular views, because outside of very narrow restrictions as established by the Supreme Court most free speech restrictions are content-neutral.