I get it. Where does it end? What is grade of the slippery slope and who controls what gets pushed down it.
But the premise of this video is that all speech should be allowed online, and it should be up to the entire online discourse to rebuke it, and allow the best ideas to flourish.... such as not making holocaust denial illegal (as it is in some countries) and just let everyone knock it down when some idiot tries to deny it happened. And on this point I can understand the other side’s perspective. Allowing hate speech on the internet and letting the internet govern it socially is not effective in many ways. There are still idiots out there who will consume it as fact and truth and ignore the rest of the internet. It’s the same tool that many groups, including ISIS, use to radicalize people.
So again, I get it. Who decides what is hate speech? Who decides what is offensive?
That’s a huge problem and as a libertarian, I don’t like that such a thing is subjectively arbitrated.
But on the other hand, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I don’t think the internet should be pure unhindered anarchy
I’ll stick the Founders’ take on the issue.
Who decides what is hate speech?
The problem is all the people who decided hate speech existed in the first place.
Because it doesn’t.