Image posted on X/Twitter, which still seems to (mostly) support free speech, although I'm unhappy with many of Elon Musk's moves
Robert Anton Wilson, like me, was a free speech absolutist who argued that the only way to protect freedom of speech was to protect it for everyone.
I know I have friends in the RAW fandom community who disagree, but I wanted to ask if RAW's opinion is looking pretty good lately, or at least seems more reasonable to folks who disagree. Here are some news headlines I've noticed recently.
"Germany’s unprecedented crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech." (from The Hill.)
Many other examples could be offered.
I'm not going to try to solve the problems of the Mideast in a blog post, but it seems to be undisputed that Israeli military action has killed thousands of civilians, many of the deaths have been children. It seems to me that protesting this ought to be a matter of freedom of speech.
Here is RAW on the topic of freedom of speech:
"Civil liberties remain indivisible, and what can be done to Catholics or Mobil Oil today can be done to Protestants or nudists tomorrow. ("If they can take Hancock's wharf they can take your cow or my barn," as John Adams once said.) Since the majority always rejects the Bill of Rights whenever a sociologist tries the experiment by offering it for approval by a cross-section of the population, and since George Bush earned great enthusiasm for his attacks on the ACLU, I don't suppose Wilgus or most people will understand this point, but we libertarians have to keep saying it over and over, every generation, and hope it will eventually register."
Bonus: Here's a story out of Canada on another free speech issue. "Canada blocks citizenship for Russian activist convicted for blog posts opposing war."