I read the FP article on censorship and safety, the point being, as I saw it, that "safety" was a spurious rationale to police speech. I've also noticed that FP has not been a strong opponent of censoring pro-Palestinian activists or Israel critics in general (I also read the negative profile of Tucker Carlson), using, it seems to me, th…
I read the FP article on censorship and safety, the point being, as I saw it, that "safety" was a spurious rationale to police speech. I've also noticed that FP has not been a strong opponent of censoring pro-Palestinian activists or Israel critics in general (I also read the negative profile of Tucker Carlson), using, it seems to me, the same rationale, i.e., these views make people unsafe and therefore need to be censored. It's disappointingly inconsistent. It seems like the same argument on both sides, left and right: we can't have freedom of speech because it's just too dangerous.
I read the FP article on censorship and safety, the point being, as I saw it, that "safety" was a spurious rationale to police speech. I've also noticed that FP has not been a strong opponent of censoring pro-Palestinian activists or Israel critics in general (I also read the negative profile of Tucker Carlson), using, it seems to me, the same rationale, i.e., these views make people unsafe and therefore need to be censored. It's disappointingly inconsistent. It seems like the same argument on both sides, left and right: we can't have freedom of speech because it's just too dangerous.