> they don’t even think we should be allowed to argue for more housing. They don’t think we are even entitled to a fair hearing. We should all recognize that silencing your political rivals is beyond the pale and that complaints like this one, even if they end up going nowhere, can have a chilling effect on activists and ordinary people who want to exercise their rights.

Don't worry, there are sooo many free speech absolutists that will come out of the woodwork to protect this dastardly attempt to stifle speech through abuse of legal procedures.

No? Where did all those absolutists go?

This comment is a hilarious example of: https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279?lang...

My theory is that the major parties are currently going through another swap of ideals, so the free-speech absolutists don't have a home.

The regions that give the strongest support to the Democrats, like Marin County in California, don't want anything built, are actively kicking out ranchers that have lived there for generations, are adamantly against anyone calling anyone else something offensive, and are in general against what was classically liberal.

Meanwhile, rural Texas counties that give the strongest support to the Republicans are for worker protections, generally against government-prohibitions on insulting someone, are increasing in their support for populism, and so on.

The Democrats used to support free-speech absolutists, who are no longer welcome there, but the Republicans are just opening up to the ideal, and don't fully support it yet.

They were sued by the current administration and recorded as domestic terrorists,held down and sprayed in the face by irregular paramilitary with extrajudicial powers, detained without probable cause or charges, investigated by the FBI in the dead of night, placed on no fly lists, post retirement rank demoted, fired, laid off, swatted, delivered pizza in the name of dead relatives, and all the wonderful stuff that’s making America great again.

Please speak plainly. It comes across like you allege that "free speech absolutists" would betray their principles due to aligning with NIMBYs (I read "protect" as "protect against", because otherwise it makes even less sense). But where on Earth does that assumption come from? If your intent is not to sneer at a political outgroup (based on a prediction, not even actual conduct) when why adopt this tone?

Hi I'm right here

Free speech should obviously be protected in all circumstances including this one. I don’t know what you are going on about, but it’s probably the unfortunately common and flawed perception that anyone who supports “free speech” right now is an unprincipled right winger who only supports it for their ideological allies.

I like free speech.

I also oppose mandatory licensing. (In this case, to practice law)

The latter is the accusation, it seems impossible it’s not thrown out.

[flagged]