threat to free speech is not so much extremism as it is censorship and propaganda.
It's difficult to define the scope of extremism when censorship and propaganda play major role. — SpaceDweller
Can you give an example of censorship? — Jackson
There is no need for an example, censorship is well known method with a well known outcome. — SpaceDweller
I don't get that. The only thing they've done that's disruptive is expressing their opinion. — T Clark
So a woman comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, ... — T Clark
So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him — T Clark
So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses inappropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? — T Clark
The framing isn't obvious?
Why didn't you write "... and expresses an opinion about gay people I disagree with"?
Now suddenly it is a lot less obvious that this person did something that shouldn't be protected under the right to free speech. (Though one is always entitled to ask people to leave their house, of course) — Tzeentch
Why didn't you say "... and expresses an extreme political opinion"?
Should this person now be immediately fired? I think not. — Tzeentch
Why didn't you say "and curses, swears and used inappropriate language in a fit of anger"?
You may agree that your way of framing certainly nudges us into a certain direction, doesn't it? — Tzeentch
Mill’s arguments for free speech are far better than his arguments for voting and other statist schemes—a Benthamite through and through. We are talking about one and not the other, after all. — NOS4A2
In opposition to this it may be contended, that although the public, or the State, are not warranted in authoritatively deciding, for purposes of repression or punishment, that such or such conduct affecting only the interests of the individual is good or bad, they are fully justified in assuming, if they regard it as bad, that its being so or not is at least a disputable question: That, this being supposed, they cannot be acting wrongly in endeavouring to exclude the influence of solicitations which are not disinterested, of instigators who cannot possibly be impartial—who have a direct personal interest on one side, and that side the one which the State believes to be wrong, and who confessedly promote it for personal objects only. There can surely, it may be urged, be nothing lost, no sacrifice of good, by so ordering matters that persons shall make their election, either wisely or foolishly, on their own prompting, as free as possible from the arts of persons who stimulate their inclinations for interested purposes of their own.
...
The interest, however, of these dealers in promoting intemperance is a real evil, and justifies the State in imposing restrictions and requiring guarantees which, but for that justification, would be infringements of legitimate liberty. — On Liberty
It might not be OK to fire someone for expressing certain kinds of extreme political opinions, like the abolition of government, but OK to fire someone for expressing other kinds of extreme political opinions, like Nazism. — Michael
You count being fired from private employment as a legal consequence? — Michael
Assuming there was a contract involved that would be breached, yes. — Tzeentch
And you think that any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, i.e. without a breach of contract? So employers should not be able to require that their employees refrain from expressing certain opinions? I cannot make it a condition of employment at my synagogue that employees must not condone Nazism? — Michael
most (all?) of us are just saying that even if the government ought not have the power to prevent people from speaking or imprison/fine those who do, it is right that people are held accountable for the things they say and face reasonable social consequences such as being fired from private employment or having their social media account suspended. — Michael
Of course we can think of examples where one's privately held beliefs can make one unable to hold certain jobs. In such cases a good argument needs to be made why that is so, but the grounds for firing someone would not be them expressing their beliefs, but them being unsuitable for a job. — Tzeentch
The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch
The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch
My argument is that I'm not obligated to keep him as an employee. — Michael
But you're beating around the bush. Your example doesn't feature an expression of an opinion, but an insult. — Tzeentch
Depending on the terms of contract, you may very well be. — Tzeentch
However you don't have the inalienable right to use Twitter or be employed by me, therefore it isn't wrong for me to fire you or for Twitter to suspend your account for expressing your opinion.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.