Radical Relativism No Defense for Twitter’s Radical Left Censorship

The Left argues that the First Amendment is not “absolute.” So that means it is "relative." Thus, they would conclude, that the egregiously selective and targeted censorship at Twitter was justifiable. Relative to the perceptions and judgements of the Twitter radical Left, the Right's speech is unacceptable. On Twitter today we hear the shallow minds of the Left argue that one should not be able to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre; and, one should not be permitted to incite violence against another’s person. Therefore, based on these two examples, all speech, they continue, is relative and all judgements about what is acceptable, permissible and censorable is relative, i.e., not determinable objectively and thus subjectively relative. But we might ask relative to or for whom or what? Why and to what particular relative points of view is speech only relatively or situationally or contextually permissable?

Moreover, with respect to the Left's presumably justificatory examples, more importantly we must point out that the reason yelling ‘fire’ and objecting to permitting inciting violence is not because speech is not absolute nor because such examples are instances of causing or preventing some unconscionable action but because such speech makes it virtually impossible to invoke the other side of speech, namely, the ability and opportunity to question, to object, to inquire, to dialogue and participate democratically in the discourse of knowledge and reality. The Left’s fallaciously superficial if not silly counterexamples are examples of speech acts that violate the nature of speech itself. That is, to question the factuality, truth, reality, goodness of any act of speech, or of any actual events, fulfills upon and honors the nature of speech whether declarative, interrogative, speculative or imaginative. Speech which violates the nature of speech and prevents the fulfillment of its and our human nature is that which must be impermissible. So in short that “speech” should be stopped which stops speech itself from enabling us to fulfill upon our nature, spirit and purposefulness as beings of speech. The 'shout fire/inciting violence' examples are impermissable because they excite or incite actions that stop speech where speech is or may well be required. Real speech has recourse to itself as dialogue that enables the truth and reality of claims to be considered, not imminently and exigently without further linguistic consideration thru impulsive action, but reflectively within the imperatives of the required time to think, speak, reflect, comment and question. Real speech allows and invites a response and provides the time and opportunity for the responder to do so.

The Leftists are radical relativists for whom the only thing that is absolute is their point of view, their proclamation of the real, the true and the good. Thus we on the right are dealing with a dogmatic, authoritarian and effectively violent cabal. In their relativistic defense of censorship, they violently violate speech itself and thereby the very practice that fulfills upon our nature as creatures of language and thought, a practice requiring in principle unbridled, infinite iterations of the word.