> the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a slippery slope.
I don't support free speech myself, but I guess it would be that the whole premise is wrong. To think he's right you need to believe that certain speech leads to violence or hatred and that trying to suppress that speech prevents violence and hatred. And even if speech can lead to violence and hatred, some could argue that it's not enough to justify taking away someone's individual freedoms. Like how someone not being able to responsibly drink alcohol isn't a good justification to take away my right to drink it. If you commit violence because of intoxication, you'll get punished for the violence. But it's not a good reason to take away my right to drink alcohol.
I don’t think you should be speaking for anarchists unless you are one yourself & embedded in that community. As a non-anarchist who is sometimes in coalition with them on certain issues I have a very different impression of their view on this matter. I don’t think you can claim their support for your slippery slope / free speech absolutist position.
As I replied to another comment, I'm not active on any anarchist servers, but I know many anarchists in real life. The notion I've gotten from them is that they support absolute free speech. Maybe they're an exception. Maybe it's an Eastern European thing. I don't know. I don't support absolute free speech myself. I just took issue with the statement that it's obvious that some speech needs to be censored, because I know some very educated intelligent people who disagree with it.
So you’re telling me that these platforms, operated by private entities, do have the power to moderate what content they allowed to be published?
I find it ironic that the same people who question whether or not Facebook should be allowed to do this seemingly have no problem with the moderation on Hacker News. Trump’s account would have been restricted within days here after repeated warnings. And yet few seem to question that @dang’s moderation is precisely how we continue to (mostly) have high-level, thoughtful discussion around these topics. Fewer still question HN’s right to perform moderation in general.
And yet when it comes to Donald Trump’s calls—from a seat of power—to overthrow the results of free, fair, and democratic elections so that he can stay in office, we’re supposed to simply throw our hands up in the air and accept it? When he uses thinly-veiled (and sometimes completely open) language encouraging his supporters to use violence to achieve his goals, we’re supposed to accept that there’s just nothing to be done?
Anyone making this argument should be deeply, deeply ashamed.
I'm not active on any online anarchist servers so I can't comment on that. But the anarchists I know in real life, at least based on the conversations we've had, support absolute free speech.
as an anarchist, i can explain that none of us support government restrictions on speech, and i would like my enemies to be as loud as possible so i know who to target.
No, I've only heard of libertarianism in the context of America. The people I know call themselves anarchists. I don't have much knowledge about anarchism so I don't know if there's different flavors of it. Like I've heard of anarcho-communism which must be fundamentally quite different. Based on the conversations I've had with them, my own understanding was that the idea would be almost like Laissez-faire, but even more extreme since there's no government at all.
Almost all anarchists around the world would not consider those people anarchists. Anarchism is anti-capitalist. Please see the history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
If it's not anarchism then what would you call a completely stateless system that still has a similar free market economy to what we have today? As far as I know, Laissez-faire system still has a state. The group I know is mostly well-off and educated people, not some edgy 16yos. Maybe they've taken anarchism and given their own spin to it. I guess it doesn't really matter. I should have said the "anarchists" I know and some groups I've seen online support absolute free speech.
Most anarchists around the world would say that it's not possible except for mutualists. What you're talking about is what Americans call libertarianism.
Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a slippery slope.