Classic no true Scotsman. All the people who proclaim to be absolutists or advocates but dont meet my definition clearly are not.

▲

_heimdall 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That makes no sense. Free speech is clearly defined, say what you want and the government has no authority to censor you. Anything short of that isn't free speech, and creating some middle ground between "free speech" and "absolutism" is nothing more than an attempt to move the goal posts.

What most people seem to miss is that companies like Facebook aren't the government and therefore aren't held to the standard of free speech. Signal ng up for an account and agreeing to their terms gives them authority to censor.

▲

shimman an hour ago | parent [-]

While free speech may be defined, "free speech advocates" routinely do not care about free speech. They often use it as a rally cry to push their views onto others while working to ensure speech they don't like is silenced.

It's similar to how neoliberals say they care about humans when in reality they only care about corporations. Messaging doesn't always match optics.

▲

_heimdall an hour ago | parent [-]

Those people simply don't earn the term "free speech advocates" then. Someone can claim the banner, but if they don't live up to the term itself it doesn't matter what flag they want to fly.

	▲	tfrancisl a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Again, no true scotsman. If all the people who call a spade a diamond get together and call themselves spade-truthers, their perspective is spade-trutherism, however much that upsets true spade-trutherists.