[WaPo] Opinion: Anyone can boycott the Beijing Olympics. Everyone should.

So again there is no censorship happening in that situation. Whether you agree with Young or not he is entitled to his belief by your own admission and is exercising his own rights to free speech.

 

And again in "On Liberty" Mills himself says there are limits to free speech. He specifically shows the example of someone inciting violence against a baker as an area where speech should be limited.

 

If the All Star can be moved from Atlanta for perceived voter suppression, the Olympics can be moved from China for far worse if the participants complained loud enough.

 

This is our major disagreement. Every critical thinker has a preference for free speech. You seem to have a libertarian absolutist view of free speech, while I have a more nuanced view. Sure everyone has the right to hold mistaken belief, we don't want thought police. I just don't think people with mistaken beliefs should be handed a megaphone to spread those beliefs. And if they have a megaphone and won't listen to reason, metaphorically slapping it out of their hand may be necessary.

The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

Free speech has edge cases. I would consider spreading disinformation that leads to death a valid edge case to free speech.

 

I've been boycotting the olympics since about my 20's. I'm 46 for reference. I just don't find any of it entertaining. I may watch an off game here or there of basketball or soccer but otherwise I don't care about any of these solympic sports.

 

No one will limit my right to watch Swedish women's curling. Freedom!

 

If advertising cigarettes is a violation of the harm principle then spreading blatant untruth about medicine in a pandemic seems to also be a violation. Cigarette ads don't directly lead to death.

I'll get to the Popper quote later.

 

Let the free market decide. If someone's speech is damaging enough that it causes deaths then naturally through outcry from private citizens free speech, the market will correct and make sure their voice isn't on a megaphone.

I think we all agree the government shouldn't intervene.

 

That would be good but the IOC aint the MLB.

 

If you're aiming that at me I've said that Rogan has a right to produce his show how he likes. I've even said that people have a right to put out misleading and untrue content. That said in regard to the situation above the issue with Rogan is that some sort of harm may be done to him by having Neil YOung demand his podcast be removed from Spotify. Under what you outlined above that would be an indirect harm by Young since he himself doesn't directly remove Rogan, and thus acceptable.

And of course Rogan hasn't been removed from Spotify so there is no actual harm.

The main point is that even Mills recognizes that free speech isn't unlimited and that harm can come from speech. In the portion I highlighted the writer for the Stanford Encyclopedia agrees that speech can lead to the exact type of harm that can be done.

 

Commodore's kind,

claims to be anti-communist,
but blindly follows a communist-ass kisser, the Orange wig, who

• called off the trade war, after the PRC granted him and his daughter licensing/copyrights in China
• kissed up to Putin
• made overtures to the Cuban / Russian Gov't to built a Trump hotel there

​

 

Does that mean Zhu is going back to be Beverly again? You have to savor the delicious irony in this story. You get in bed with the red devil, you’ve going up in flame.