Laura Perrins doesn't agree with right-wingers who lament Jimmy Kimmel's cancellation.
Was Kimmel cancelled? It's not entirely clear. It seems to have been a commerical decision made by the network, based on how many viewers he offended.
At the same time, I don't think conservatives should be celebrating anybody being punished for having an opinion. We certainly shouldn't be engaging in the same "free speech has consequences" argument that progressives have made so long.
("Free speech has consequences" could be used to justify any restriction of free speech.)
Laura's article seems to come close to a philosophy of "to the victor goes the spoils", which doesn't seem very civilized. I agree with most of her articles, but not this one.
I'm not a free speech absolutist (is there even such a thing?). But I'm definitely a free speech maximalist.
Edward Feser is, in my view, more sensible.
For any political discussion rule #0 is "is it in good faith?" If one's interlocutor actually believes what he says he believes and isn't just trying to manipulate people or argue or parrot something, then you can talk over the issue.
ReplyDeleteBut after you have good faith, the second issue is that the concept of free speech has become so confused that in many cases people are even themselves muddled.
For instance, one common (implicit) definition of free speech is purely negative. Everything is allowed, except for certain restrictions. But that is the opposite of how people actually think about free speech. I'm not sure if anyone really believes in that type of abstract free speech (as opposed to using it for the purpose of arguing). People start with an idea of what kinds of speech are good and then things outside that are either restricted or outright banned.
I left two comments on free speech saying similar things over on Edward Feser's free speech post, which he linked to in the post that you linked (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-free-speech-for.html).