Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.
All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction.
> and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.
I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.
> Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory.
The ideal that we don't try to suppress speech we disagree with, but rather we encourage it to debate it.
> Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.
You're confusing an idea with its expression. There's no inconsistency between free speech ideals and criticizing the idea that speech should be restricted. However, it would be inconsistent to suggest that someone oughtn't express that idea and especially to try to actively prevent someone from expressing it. In other words, anyone welcome to express a belief that censorship is a good thing, but I'm not violating free speech ideals by expressing disagreeing with them; quite the opposite!
> joshuamorton 25 minutes ago | parent | on: Blog Anonymously
Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.
All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction.
> I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.
You misunderstood my post. I was certainly not arguing that anyone has been fired for expressing abstract support for free speech. Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals, but rather trying to stop someone from expressing their desire for speech restrictions (and especially by trying to get them fired) would be inconsistent with free speech ideals. However, no one is trying to stop anyone from expressing their preferences for speech restrictions and certainly no one is trying to get anyone fired for expressing those preferences.
> Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals
Restricting in what way though? Formal restrictions: laws, assuredly this is inconsistent. But if the "restriction" not a formal restriction, but instead a reaction to criticism, then this is a meta-criticism of criticism, and that is counter to those ideals, because criticism itself is speech.
All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction.
> and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.
I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.