>Don't your statements also have contradictions?

I don't know, do they? I can't really address a comment like this without you being more specific.

>Is it right that your free speech supersedes the free speech of others to the point where you actively fight against their free speech and which means the speech of others isn't really free then, is it?

Sure, this is a fine principled stance to take. However, if this is a principled stand rather than one based off situational politics, doesn't that apply to other forms of speech which are used to stifle speech of others?

Hate speech is one example. The people who advocate against cancel culture generally aren't in favor of more restrictions on hate speech.

Money in politics is another. If political advertising is protected speech, doesn't a billionaire having the ability to outbid me for all ad inventory in the lead up to an election stifle my ability to freely voice my beliefs? Either the billionaire's ads aren't free speech or they are free speech and are being used to drown out the free speech of others.

> I don't know, do they? I can't really address a comment like this without you being more specific.

I tried to convey that by pointing out that you are exercising free speech to eliminate someone else's free speech. That seems contradictory to an environment where free speech exists.

> Sure, this is a fine principled stance to take. However, if this is a principled stand rather than one based off situational politics, doesn't that apply to other forms of speech which are used to stifle speech of others?

> Hate speech is one example. The people who advocate against cancel culture generally aren't in favor of more restrictions on hate speech.

It seems a little disingenuous to just lump everyone that doesn't think cancel culture in together with those that like hate speech. I don't support hate speech.

> Money in politics is another. If political advertising is protected speech, doesn't a billionaire having the ability to outbid me for all ad inventory in the lead up to an election stifle my ability to freely voice my beliefs? Either the billionaire's ads aren't free speech or they are free speech and are being used to drown out the free speech of others.

I don't know the answers to this, it does not seem black and white and seems like a more complex scenario but an ad market does not seem like it is exactly similar to a free public forum. But yes, it seems bad if that's what you are asking me.

The problem with fighting hate speech is that it does not work and the likelihood of severe abuse is high. You could declare anything as hate, especially in modern culture.

Apart from that money in politics is also a problem. A very complicated one that also is not helped at all with additional hate speech legislation. On the contrary.

It seems you’re suggesting that by exercising disagreement we would be limiting the free speech of those we disagree with. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. Others have the freedom of speech to speak against your freedom of speech. Only the government is disallowed in interfering.

I wouldn't call disagreement the same as trying to get someone fired because you disagree with them.

> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.

Again, the definition of freedom of speech is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint". It's not really free speech if you have to worry about being censored or consequences. It may be reprehensible speech that you are against but using freedom of speech as a weapon to punish others does not foster an environment where freedom of speech exists.

I personally think we should be able to have academic discussions with people that we disagree with and not try to further worsen this divisive and polarized world that we are trending towards by attacking them instead of their opinions. Shouting the opposing side down so that they cannot speak does nothing but make the situation worse. You might feel like you win a short term win by deplatforming someone but it causes further radicalization. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you are on you will not convince the other side without actually engaging in good faith discussions.

> I wouldn't call disagreement the same as trying to get someone fired because you disagree with them.

> > Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.

> Again, the definition of freedom of speech is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint". It's not really free speech if you have to worry about being censored or consequences.

That's a very absolutist way of seeing free speech. I also don't believe anyone practices this view of free speech in practice. If you have children, are they allowed to say anything without consequences? What would you do with a guest at your house who repeatedly insulted you? I also would like to know what you think about spam filters, or moderation here on HN is that not cancellation?

As a side note there was an interesting post from a twitter discussion a number of weeks ago. The main gist of the discussion was that moderation is hardly ever about "cancelling" some sort of free speech, but about increasing SNR. Harassment, racism etc. decrease SNR and make people leave your platform.

No, it is not. You have the freedom to rebuttal, but not the one to insist of speakers to be silence or removed. Look up the definition of freedom of speech on wikipedia, it is in the first sentence.

This is not absolutist at all, this is a very basic rule for civilized discourse. You are correct that people occasionally do not adhere to these principles.

In the US, that definition has only ever applied to the government. And it should only ever apply to the government.

> Shouting the opposing side down so that they cannot speak does nothing but make the situation worse. You might feel like you win a short term win by deplatforming someone but it causes further radicalization. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you are on you will not convince the other side without actually engaging in good faith discussions.

Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone?

> Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone?

Yes. Why not try to engage them in a discussion to try to convince them? If you truly believe in your viewpoint and want it to prevail, don't you think engaging with them and convincing them of your viewpoint would be better for whatever you believe in in the long run than simply muting the opposing viewpoint?

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences from that speech. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean I have to let you sit at my bar.

Right, you can. And you should be able to do that. You are just not adhering to freedom of speech in that moment. You leverage rights to your property or similar rights.