@vahnj I saw someone say the best argument against this is to just scream at the top of your lungs in their face until they ask you to stop then scream that you're being censored.

@Fuego lmfao "IT'S FREE SPEECH I CAN SCREAM WHATEVER I WANT"

@vahnj "DONT WALK AWAY WHERE ARE YOU GOING YOU SNOWFLAKE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A SAFE SPACE AWAY FROM MY YELLING AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

@vahnj It depends on your world view. if you think that pathos misleads and that the exchange of ideas is the way to progress society, then you'd see that as a higher purpose. It is easy to dismiss personal appeals as unimportant in that mindset if held genuinely. I struggle with that thought pattern occasionally. I think free speech is incredibly valuable, even if I don't agree with what people are saying. I think middle ground is possible though.

@vahnj But, it's hard to argue for like... debate decorum without coming off as an elitist :) So... I'm open to suggestions!

@Irick free speech is a useful tool to give power to individuals in the context of a government

if individuals use that to harm or abuse others, then that speech should not be free. for example, under US law, hate speech- IE, speech that derides protected classes- is not protected

it's not hard to have the free exchange of ideas, and not be an asshole

@vahnj for me, it's not about government or law. free speech is a fundimental value, like a virtue. it's not going to be persuasive to say "the law says xyz" because, to quote John Stewart Mill's On Liberty, Chapter II: "If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."

@Irick you're still ignoring the point of my post

nobody has to listen to what someone has to say

saying that free speech is "the exchange of information" and has to be respected means that you think everyone's opinion universally has to be considered, which isn't true.

@vahnj We have a right to free speech, not a right to an audience nor criticism.

@Irick you're kind of ignoring the whole point of my post. nobody has to listen to people who want to talk about their ideas, especially if they're being hateful, and they don't have a right to be heard.

@vahnj you don't have to, but someone who believes in the liberal definition of free speech would argue that is a moral failing. like I said, difference in world view. A middle ground probably exists, but without understanding the fundimental differences between the two stances common ground would be difficult to find. For instance, we could probably agree that attacking someone with speech is not conducive to conversation.

@Irick you're still ignoring the point of my post

which is funny because that's exactly the kind of thing i'm pointing out is important in my post

@vahnj I'm not ignoring your point. I'm trying to show you the other viewpoint. I understand the argument that you can't and should not force someone to listen, but morality is about should, not have to. I don't think it's right to force people to listen any more than I think it is right to force people to shut up.

@Irick then why are you trying to debate with me when all i wanted to do was complain about people who use free speech as an excuse to harass people?

@vahnj because you asked a question. from your question, it was clear you has a specific assumtion that was preventing you from understanding the other argument. in the interest of common ground, I was trying to present the argument in a way that would be understandable.

@vahnj sorry, I misread the intent of your question.

@Irick we're cool. I don't really disagree that exchange of info is important but consent and interest have to be weighed for it to be meaningful or even useful.