May 17, 2014 23:31
Remember the other part of the no-free-speech side: "You do not have to provide a forum for those you disagree with. There is no principle that says everyone should have an opportunity to present their side. Censorship of opposing views is just what they deserve. If they weren't assholes, no one would criticize or censor them."
What now prevents the New York Times and other organs of the 1%, from suppressing all statements from Occupy, and running only the most negative views* of them? When the 1% buy enough stock in Google, why would Google continue to list sites criticizing the 1%?
Maybe some public respect for the principle of, oh dear, "free speech"?
* altogether, instead of partially as they do now
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ccjohn: Except we only get to speak at all because we all supposedly believe in free speech. They will come after you or me next time. Not one of us has never said anything the mob cannot insist demands action.
You're right on the big point, but it isn't the "mob" that will come after us, at least not soon. First it will be the rich who will give us less and less "free space" in their big newspapers and You-Tube. The will define more and more of the 99%'s positions as "too offensive to be allowed any time."
Later, (and maybe already), who is it that will inform and incite the "mob"? Astro-turfing is easy for those with plenty of money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------