Skip to main content


#Freespeech is not an inalienable right, or a moral virtue on its own. Its a social contract. When you decide that certain groups should be excluded from that right, you lose that right. If your entire ideology involved excluding or removing someone else's right to live or even exist, you are an outlaw in that social contract and as in medieval Europe you are no longer protected by the law and people may do with you as they wish.
in reply to anubis2814

So, by that logic, you lose that right because you've also decided that certain groups should lose that right... right?
in reply to Louis Ingenthron

in reply to anubis2814

Nonsense. The Popper Paradox is about *tolerance*. We should not tolerate hateful speech, but that doesn't mean we have the right to employ government agents to silence it by force.

Instead, we can show our intolerance with far less harmful methods, such as: boycott, disassociation, shame, "cancel culture" (remember how much that one pissed them off?), and exclusion.

These methods allow us to achieve the same goals without having to resort to techniques straight out of the fascists' own playbook.

in reply to Louis Ingenthron

@Louis Ingenthron The freedom to say as you wish without government intervention or reprisal. Hence why using the ourlaw metaphore works.
in reply to anubis2814

So then, by that definition, when you claim someone "lose[s] that right" to free speech, what do you mean if not the government silencing that person by force?