Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CaptainACAB wrote

How can speech be censored in a way that does not reproduce ideology or state functions/institutions?

It can't. Censorship is an authoritarian tactic.

But when does individual action veer into censorship? Does it start at verbal request or does it start at the use of force. When does the desire to exercise freedom of association tread onto the dissenter's "right" to speak? Is it a numbers game where the lower number is being suppressed?

Why should I, as an individual, ever begin to take into consideration the "rights" of others to speech? Pragmatic desire for reciprocation; some unspoken agreement between two strangers that I will not "limit" their speech so long as they, in turn, not limit mine? Courtesy? Fear of not being "anarchist enough"? Any answer this can be interpreted as a new form of authority, as it is all obligation.

Yeah, it's thought provoking in that there's no definite answer, only a continuous line of questions.

If this comes off as antagonistic, I don't mean it that way.


Gwen_Isilith wrote

No I like your response these are definitely the questions one should ask oneself. I don't mean this as the answer but my own answer to these questions I primarily relate to nihlist anti-morality in that I can only really react to speech as it relates to my self and that I want to challenge the common interpretive lenses one uses on speech aka ideology.

So I don't want to say speech is neutral or anything: if someone says "you want to fight" that could be a friend being playful or someone who actually wants to fight, and one can definitely find malicious intent in other speech. But I don't think one can judge the speech of others in absolutes; this word or phrase is wrong, only in how it relates to oneself.