Yes and he profits from fooling mentally ill people. Selling homeopatic pills and whatever.
But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than getting at Alexander Jones.
The precedent is bad.
But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than getting at Alexander Jones.
The precedent is bad.
But when you profit off the suffering and harm you've caused by being wrong knowingly and continuing to cause harm, then its a very good precedent.
I think the opposite precent would be worse. Regulating your tone around anyone with even a mediocum of power for fear of repercussion is part of the reason we're in the situation we face today.
A good reply I found online:
The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide the terms of mutual tolerance, then they are not covered by the contract. By definition intolerant people do not follow the rules so they are no longer covered and should not be tolerated.
Again, figuring out which speech is worth suppressing is a whole other can of worms.
EDIT: note that Jones did have his speech suppressed, and this was done because his speech was causing people to make death threats against the sandy hook parents. I feel like we could classify Jones's speech as intolerant against sandy hook parents, and the same logic applies as for any other type of intolerant speech.
Surely chairman mao agrees with free speech that doesn’t harm his society and social programs
The right to deliberately lie in ways that harm people is not a "right" that we want to uphold.