free speech and offense

Is regulation the best response to offensive speech? No. Well-planned counter-argument is.

One of the few mainstream notions to which I subscribe: I hate hate. Hate speech sickens me. It's disgusting, abhorrent filth that I wish never to hear spewed forth again.

But I will defend to the death your right to say it.

My reason is simple. It is not my right, nor anyone else's, to decide which ideas are worthy of the monicker, "Ultimate Truth."

the trouble with Ultimate Truth

People will lie to you. Your own eyes, ears, and brain will mislead you. And in pursuit of Ultimate Truth, you will learn that truth is neither grand nor absolute. As Ben Kenobi once said, "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Truth is impure. Truth is unstable. But best of all, truth is free. Logic can only tell us which truths may stand together. Reason can only tell us which truths may fulfill our goals. But nothing in logic or reason can tell us which truths to start with.

Nothing in logic or reason can give us an iota of Ultimate Truth.

No one has privileged knowledge. No one's knowledge is better than everyone else's. Maybe there's some knowledge that works well for everybody, but I haven't published it yet.

As much as this precludes silencing others, it does not preclude speaking louder still. I drool over the concept of counter-speech. When you hear something you hate, say so! Honesty feels great! Counter haters' free speech with free speech of your own. Anonymously if you have to. Counter-speech is the almighty god of wiser discourse. What more can I say?

Fight speech with speech, fire with fire, and never, ever escalate!

Non-violence must never be punished with violence.

That means never arresting, hitting, slapping, pinching, or biting people because of what they say. Am I wrong? Let me know it in the comments!