With the right of free speech comes the responsibility to extend that speech to others. Because if we leave who is heard to simply "who can speak the loudest", we won't find out when we're wrong.
See also: Mill's "On Liberty", available now in every Intro to Philosophy textbook.
While I agree with your statement, I think it's important to protect the concept of free speech in many places and to disrespect companies who don't.
Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping).
I think generally views like this are better left in the spotlight of the public where they can be properly argued with and not dragged into private forums and facebook feeds where it's much harder for people to see a wider response to them. Banning them is harmful to people who are getting a casual interest in their ideas and start reading up on it. When the only place they can do that is Breitbart or similar, how do you think that'll go?
Absolutely, the only way to truly deal with racism, sexism, and a whole host of other -isms is education, whether through experience that teaches otherwise, or a facts-based approach that leaves little room for argument.
My problem is so much of what goes on in these public message boards is not fact-based. Alt right groups pander to people's irritations and insecurities in a million small ways. They blatantly lie about individuals or scenarios. They set up straw men, then demonize and demolish them with words like 'cuck' and 'illegal' to inflame their readers, even when the people they're discussing are not those things at all. And when they're confronted with a dissenting viewpoint, they ignore it and move to the next. It is literally impossible for rational individuals to have discussions with them.
I think part of the problem is people don't tend to internalize lessons taught by others without respect for that person, and on the internet, everyone is a stranger. I don't want this kind of speech banned because it's offensive - I want it banned because its nonsensical, it enrages people only looking for a reason to be angry, it gives a platform to people that can't even defend their views without resorting to constant insults, it's a waste of time. That's probably my lack of caffeine talking, though.
>Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping).
Everyone keeps making comments like this. "This is a massive injustice! Unless Twitter was justified idk."
Maybe we should wait for a statement from Twitter before passing judgment.
Ok, so Twitter can definitely ban some people from its website, but "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" taken at face value, is pretty terrifying, especially given how our president elect has responded to criticism. Those consequences should be bounded to essentially: ... and now they don't like you anymore, and won't invite you to parties.
Honestly, if there wasn't censorship of alt-right views to begin with on Facebook and elsewhere, then perhaps more people would have been motivated to get out and vote for what they believe in, rather than thinking that they had already won.
Or maybe everyone on Facebook unfriends people with differing opinions anyway so it would only benefit those within the white supremacist echo chamber.
