Once again, that other thread has veered off topic, and onto a topic that’s worth discussing in its own right. So once again, I attempt to give that second topic its own thread. My points:
Free speech as an absolute is the safest, most reasonable way to go in a society where people are hell-bent on shutting down all intelligent discussion whatsoever. Extreme threats call for extreme countermeasures.
Whenever someone objects “why should I be required to give you X” always inquire as to just who is the rightful owner of X. For example: should universities be required to “give” a platform to speakers whose opinions the universities wish to silence? Remember who bought and paid for that platform. Taxpayer money, my friends. By various and sundry avenues.
2a. Hollywood gets huge tax breaks. Why, exactly? There was a reason once, a long, long time ago. But now?
2b. The established media gets preferential treatment in the form of special access to government officials for those with press passes. Why, exactly? Because they’re doing a public service and ferreting out the truth? Seriously. Who believes that anymore?
2c. Given that the government controls the airwaves, and TV news only uses same, why not bring back the Fairness Doctrine in the US?
2c1. Should the government control the airwaves as much as it does? Could we perhaps reduce the scope of the FCC?
- Do we really want to encourage the sort of people who go into meltdown when we say something they don’t like? Don’t these overgrown children themselves constitute a sickness in our societies?
4a. Some people solve problems, some people don’t solve problems, and some people make problems. The people who exchange information and ideas freely are the problem solvers. Those who don’t - aren’t.