Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech.

If you have limits on speech, then you no longer have free speech, so "to protect speech" is not a valid justification for such action. Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect other rights.

To steelman your argument:

Limits on contributions in context of politics are necessary, because protection of democratic principles in a society is more important that any one's individual freedom of speech. That is, if you are using your immense wealth to corrupt "one person one vote" principle, then it is a question of rights of many individuals vs. rights of one individual. This doesn't change the fact that it is still censorship.

---

Still, I would like you to address how your arguments for social media corporations' right to censor political views on their platform is categorically different from logic used to pass Citizens united.



I am disappointed that Rhaikh refused to attempt defend his position of: "Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech." However, I am not surprised, as rationally defending such obviously flawed (in very Orwellian way) position is all but impossible. Even my best attempts to steelman that argument had to substantially limit it in scope.

To put it bluntly, if you subscribe to general principle "Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech." you are categorically opposed to free speech.



[Linked Image]