Quote:
|
Yet many people continue to believe that pressuring speakers to change their views or modify their language constitutes a threat to free speech.
|
WOW. Did I just read that?
Yes, pressuring speakers to change their views or modify their language is
most certainly a threat to free speech.
Something tells me I'm not going to like the rest of the article...
Alright, it didn't go foul like I thought it would. In fact, it states explicitly the very thing I've been trying to communicate on the Sphere in these political debates:
Quote:
Does this mean any form of social pressure targeted at speakers is acceptable? Not at all. One of the reasons government censorship is prohibited is that the coercive power of the state is nearly impossible to resist. Social pressure that crosses the line from persuasion to coercion is also inconsistent with the values of free speech.
This explains why violence and threats of violence are not legitimate mechanisms for countering ideas one disagrees with. Physical assault—in addition to not traditionally being regarded as a form of expression —too closely resembles the use of force by the government.
|
- [emphasis mine]