When is it tolerable? What are the limits on legitimate suppression of speech?
Obviously, anything that directly impairs the speech of others--shouting loudly enough to drown out others IRL, or using spambots online--is bad, because it replaces the value of the opinions expressed with something else (the strength of your voice, or how much money you have to buy spambots with).
What else?
>>3067342
Who's to say your not a spam bot?
Three only time one should be "silenced" is when they call for direct threat against an individual.
>>3067342
Slander's a pretty good one.
>>3067359
>Person A tells a lie
>Person B presents evidence to the contrary
>Person A no longer has any credibility, and has injured himself more than he's injured Person B
>>3067368
>person A tells a lie
>person A has enough wealth and power to get that lie out to a vast audience
>person B disproves it, but doesn't have the ability to get this information out enough
>"yeah right, everyone knows person B is a paedophile"
>person B gets spat at in the street and their house burns down
In my opinion there should be no censorship at all unless the person clearly incites a crime.
>>3067342
As long as the person is not inciting violence (by violence, I mean, actual violence, not holding a popular opinion), sending a lynching mob against someone or yelling fire in a theater, they should be free...
Depends. Any sort of politics should be censored, but if there's something like "The fuck Muslims show" in which people talk about wanting to kill Muslims then censor that, it is offensive for the purpose of causing offence.
>>3067429
>offensive for the purpose of causing offence.
Although disagreeable and immature I don't think it should be censored. Offensive for tree purpose of inciting direct and explicit violence is the only acceptable case imo.
>>3067449
Things like this could indirectly incite violence.
>>3067468
Yes, as could a lot of similar examples. However in this case the responsibility should be placed on the individual who takes it upon themselves to act violently, not the one discussing it. If one were directly instructing or encouraging the act responsibility would be placed on them, but the topic brought up in a fantastical it hypothetical manner is part of social discourse and should not be censored outright because of the potential interpretations and actions by and individual.
>>3067495
Sorry for the typos, phoneposting on my lunch break.