Well, I think that a nominal protection of speech is necessary for a government to provide. While I’m a slightly more authoritarian leftist than I was years ago, I still don’t think it’s necessary or beneficial for a country to silence certain forms of dissent. I don’t see this happening in socialist countries anyways, so I’m not too concerned.
Keep in mind "authoritarian" is not "the government doing stuff." That's how it's usually used, so it's an easy trap to fall into.
If "authoritarian" has any worthwhile meaning, it would involve use of power that's arbitrary, unjustified, extreme, or against the public interest. There are many restrictions on speech that don't check these boxes.
As "more central state control." Centralized does not imply arbitrary, unjustified, extreme, or against the public interest. It can often be the opposite of those.
Well, I think that a nominal protection of speech is necessary for a government to provide. While I’m a slightly more authoritarian leftist than I was years ago, I still don’t think it’s necessary or beneficial for a country to silence certain forms of dissent. I don’t see this happening in socialist countries anyways, so I’m not too concerned.
Keep in mind "authoritarian" is not "the government doing stuff." That's how it's usually used, so it's an easy trap to fall into.
If "authoritarian" has any worthwhile meaning, it would involve use of power that's arbitrary, unjustified, extreme, or against the public interest. There are many restrictions on speech that don't check these boxes.
So, how would you define more central state control?
As "more central state control." Centralized does not imply arbitrary, unjustified, extreme, or against the public interest. It can often be the opposite of those.
Understood.
Thank you this is well said