It seems more correct than ever, no?
It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to damage the principle of free speech in the West than any opinion article I can think of, because it chains together several fallacies in a clever and funny way.
A comic response to xkcd - https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
A legal rebuttal to anybody thinking AWS’s actions were legal (they were not, and hopefully a judge will agree soon) - https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...
Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.
No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would I want HN taken offline despite them not moderating terrorist comments such as yours.
Edit: you’re confusing my clinical label of terrorism with name calling. I am not calling names, except insofar as I’m making a point about how easily it is to make content seem unacceptable when we strip away context, which is why due process is so necessary. We are all terrorists to some group, however disfavored... if child molestation was somehow legalized, anyone who attempted it would face severe extra-legal consequences for example.
The point is that while free speech might be protected as a legal concept, it's not protected as a personal concept. I espouse free speech, until someone really screws up and gets super evil, and then I don't want them to talk anymore (especially not to rally people to their evil causes). I'm not a government. And that's completely consistent with wanting a government/overall society which defends free speech.
(also, you're not doing your argument any favors by for some reason calling me a terrorist. it's not even clear why you're doing that)
to be clear: if someone shouts nazi stuff around me and I'm driven to anger enough to punch them (which, to be clear, has never happened, but hypothetically), I obviously accept the legal consequences of that. the whole point here is that legal rules abut what you should do are not ethical ones. Ethically, don't shout nazi stuff, and also ethically if you do shout nazi stuff you might get punched and you deserve it.
Don't play coy. Punching someone is not the same thing as "showing them the door".
> I'm gonna punch them for it.
Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one:
> "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
This is saying "that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good". This cannot be used to censor anything -- in fact, it claims the position is legal -- neither by the CCP or anyone else. It's a judgment on the quality of the idea.
It seems to me you're trying to invoke the CCP boogeyman regardless of whether it actually fits this argument.
Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way.
Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’re correct because what they’re saying isn’t illegal. Nobody makes that argument.
That's your reading. Mine is that if the best you can say about a position is "it's not illegal" then you're on shaky ground. I.e. it's legal, but unconvincing. It doesn't mean you should be censored, it just means your position probably lacks merit if you can't mention anything else that's good about it.
> Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism
At this point I have to ask: you are aware I'm not the author of xkcd, aren't you?
That's just not true. The claim is that if you're censored and your only defense of your position is that you should be allowed to say it, you position is flimsy. Nobody would agree with the claim that "_in general_ if you're censored your speech is abhorrent", that's laughable.
Now, yeah, agreed, it's debatable whether this actually happens. But it sure feels like it happens.
Note, there is some potentially upsetting language in this document where Amazon gives examples of the type of content on Parler they deemed to be in violation of the contract. Consider yourself warned, if that sort of thing bothers you.
[0] https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...