> Face it: if you interfere between Sally who writes something she wants Bob to read, and Bob who wants to read what Sally wrote, that's censorship.
What about national security, NDAs, illegal content, etc.?
Two consenting parties doesn’t mean the speech is legal or good for society.
> And no, I'm not interested in exploring extreme exceptions to the general principle.
The Supreme Court is (to the count of hundreds of times) because the devil is in the details. “Free speech” sounds good on paper, but when you start trying to define it and enforce it it gets complicated with tons of edge cases.
> Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument.
“Tommy stole my lunch money.” “What about that time you stole Sally’s pencil?”
That would be whataboutism. It avoids debating the act of stealing someone's lunch money, by instead charging hypocrisy.
Just using the words “what about” doesn’t make it whataboutism.
I used the words “what about” to ask about a subsection of speech: NDAs, National security, illegal content, etc., that is covered by OC's definition of what it means to censor speech. I'm not charging hypocrisy or avoiding disproving the argument, I'm examining OC's claim. In this case "What about" is used to examine pertinent edge cases, and isn't whataboutism.
For example, in a scenario where Bob (US government) has nuclear launch codes he wants to talk about and Sally (domestic terrorist) wants to hear what he has to say, should someone intervene and restrict Bob's speech? By OC's definition, if they do, that is censorship. OC's only conditions are two consenting parties.
> Face it: if you interfere between Sally who writes something she wants Bob to read, and Bob who wants to read what Sally wrote, that's censorship.
Others, like the Supreme Court prefer to say that free speech has limitations that are not covered by the 1st amendment.
> The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising
So, in the case of two consenting parties discussing nuclear launch codes, OC calls that "censorship", but the Supreme Court says that the speech wasn't protected in the first place.
What about national security, NDAs, illegal content, etc.?
Two consenting parties doesn’t mean the speech is legal or good for society.
> And no, I'm not interested in exploring extreme exceptions to the general principle.
The Supreme Court is (to the count of hundreds of times) because the devil is in the details. “Free speech” sounds good on paper, but when you start trying to define it and enforce it it gets complicated with tons of edge cases.