It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and every…
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.