• uzi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    People have a protected right to express offensive and repulsive views and opinions without restrictions and without censorship in public areas.

    • mirror_slap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sure they do - and when they express that right in reprehensible repulsive ways, they deserve every bit of everyone else reacting appropriately.

  • ThrowawayOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    No I dont agree that we’re hypcrites, but its still a somewhat good piece.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It’s always weird to me how people that complain about free speech being under attack always exhibit a persecution complex from atop a social media platform.

      Elon Musk literally owns what was formerly Twitter, and has used that platform to give a platform to far-right influencers that are also free speech advocates.

      Trump, after his tussle with Twitter’s previous owners, started his own social media platform to ensure that he couldn’t be curtailed.

      Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA go on and on about how conservatives values are not welcomed on campus even as they receive millions from donors to come back every year to campuses across American and host conservative get togethers.

      “Cancel culture” is a con:

      The power to cancel is nothing compared to the power to establish what is and is not a cultural crisis. And that power remains with opinion leaders who are, at this point, skilled hands at distending their own cultural anxieties into panics that—time and time and time again—smother history, fact, and common sense into irrelevance.

      But the article is right:

      The appropriate response to selective concern in one direction isn’t selective concern in the other direction.

      On the other hand, the article must appeal to the establishment, like owners of social media sites, university presidents, business owners, and gobernors. Because, yet again, it was not Palestinian supporters, for example, who were getting Israeli supporters fired, or having their visas revoked for supporting “terrorism”. It was the other way around.

      Free speech is always, always about privilege.