I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it(quoteinvestigator.com)
quoteinvestigator.com
I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
767 comments
I'm sure everybody read the article before commenting, but just to summarize: Voltaire probably never specifically gave this quote, it probably comes from a historian writing about him. Likely due some ambiguous quotation marks, people took it as a direct quote and ran with it.
I really hate it that so many people these feel the need to immediately push back when somebody says something they don't agree with. I remember years ago you could have a discussion and express your opinion and it was fine. Now with a lot of people it's better to say nothing.
I friend of mine used to say: I disapprove of what you say, but I would kill myself to avoid hearing it again.
Ken White, a well known former prosecutor turned defense lawyer and first amendment law expert/speaker (amongst other things), did an interesting article towards the end of last year talking about the importance of being clear about terminology in these discussions ("In Defense Of Free Speech Pedantry" [0]). I think that's very important in these online debates because "freedom of speech" has become a somewhat overloaded that people can use to mean different things. I tend to think of "Free Speech" specifically in terms of what he calls Free Speech Rights (FSR), the actual legal rights afforded by the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment and subsequent court rulings and precedent, with what people do with it and my own opinions a separate sphere. A lot of people though are bringing in what he terms Free Speech Culture and Speech Decency as well. Just because we legally can do something doesn't mean it's good to exercise that power. Norms sometimes should be challenged, but also are usually worth a bit of thought and discretion. And legal FSR apply to everyone and preserves a forever ongoing cycle of discussion and culture, that's part of the point, and in turn protect criticism and counter criticism, exclusion as well as inclusion. The right to speak necessarily entails the right to not speak.
I don't know if his proposed terms will ultimately catch on and make the most sense, but I do think it's worth some effort in being more precise with our language because FSR vs FSC and SD involves extremely different applications of power and risk, and separating out the domains can help everyone think more clearly about the topic. In the case of this classic saying, it involves all of them in a compact manner. Someone can think speech is just plain wrong, disgusting and evil even, but not want to see force used upon the speaker or any other speaker for a variety of good reasons.
----
0: https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped...
I don't know if his proposed terms will ultimately catch on and make the most sense, but I do think it's worth some effort in being more precise with our language because FSR vs FSC and SD involves extremely different applications of power and risk, and separating out the domains can help everyone think more clearly about the topic. In the case of this classic saying, it involves all of them in a compact manner. Someone can think speech is just plain wrong, disgusting and evil even, but not want to see force used upon the speaker or any other speaker for a variety of good reasons.
----
0: https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped...
A lot of these quotes are actually inventions of translators or researchers.
Another one that I'm pretty sure was not actually said by Aristotle (and that I love), is:
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."
Another one that I'm pretty sure was not actually said by Aristotle (and that I love), is:
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."
I've always been a free speech absolutist. I don't think there's any speech, including hate speech, that I would ban. If I don't like it, I can offer my own opinions and try to educate people, but banning speech outright is wrong.
The problem that has occurred is that some people on the extremes now think "All the other people/children are so stupid that they will get tricked into believe all these lies. We should shut down that speech so that these poor idiots don't fall into this trap." This is thinking that I strongly disagree with. Some people may believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the convincing. I personally believe that most people are smarter than this and banning speech based on "protect the children!" is a terrible excuse that both the left and right are using nowadays (more by the right a decade ago).
There is no system better than complete free speech, because it allows the most amount of information to be passed back and forth and gives people the opportunity to decide for themselves.
The problem that has occurred is that some people on the extremes now think "All the other people/children are so stupid that they will get tricked into believe all these lies. We should shut down that speech so that these poor idiots don't fall into this trap." This is thinking that I strongly disagree with. Some people may believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the convincing. I personally believe that most people are smarter than this and banning speech based on "protect the children!" is a terrible excuse that both the left and right are using nowadays (more by the right a decade ago).
There is no system better than complete free speech, because it allows the most amount of information to be passed back and forth and gives people the opportunity to decide for themselves.
It's a silly idea, anyway.
People's right to free speech should be defended, for instance no more Galileo being silenced by the Church because empirical evidence fractured their fragile beliefs.
But at the same time, people can't just say _anything_. If society was still allowed to be legally publicly homophobic, I'd still be told to my face by various people that I'm a: monster, pedophile, going to hell, sissy and all manner of cruel insults & jokes just because I'm gay. That wears someone down, after a while.
People's right to free speech should be defended, for instance no more Galileo being silenced by the Church because empirical evidence fractured their fragile beliefs.
But at the same time, people can't just say _anything_. If society was still allowed to be legally publicly homophobic, I'd still be told to my face by various people that I'm a: monster, pedophile, going to hell, sissy and all manner of cruel insults & jokes just because I'm gay. That wears someone down, after a while.
> Voltaire? François-Marie Arouet? S. G. Tallentyre? Evelyn Beatrice Hall? Ignazio Silone? Douglas Young? Norbert Guterman?
There was no online social media back then.
There was no online social media back then.
The rationale for free speech is easy to articulate - “if you restrict speech you open the door for your opponents to do the same”.
Everybody wants to restrict speech they dont like, but with that comes the ability for others to restrict speech you do like.
Hence, the optimal outcome is no or minimal restriction.
Everybody wants to restrict speech they dont like, but with that comes the ability for others to restrict speech you do like.
Hence, the optimal outcome is no or minimal restriction.
This has always been my view of speech. I believe that every human being has The right to speak their mind without fear of government reprisal.
I wish it also meant a right to speak your mind free from the judgment of your employer, or university, but that is a slippery slope. Just because I will defend a person's right to speak their mind no matter what, does not mean I have to listen to it, or agree with it.
I wrestle with this, because if I had an opinion, pick any social issue, I don't think an employer should be allowed to fire me because of that.
However, we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own.
I wish it also meant a right to speak your mind free from the judgment of your employer, or university, but that is a slippery slope. Just because I will defend a person's right to speak their mind no matter what, does not mean I have to listen to it, or agree with it.
I wrestle with this, because if I had an opinion, pick any social issue, I don't think an employer should be allowed to fire me because of that.
However, we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own.
This thread is an exercise in accepting disappointment in your fellow man.
The idea was useful in the past when humanity was still experimenting with different ideas about morality, forms of government, religion, philosophy, etc.
Now that we have settled all that there is no need any more to allow wrong think and wrong speech. /S
In seriousness though, this fight is not new at all. The fact that somebody felt the need to state that quote means the same debate existed back then.
Now that we have settled all that there is no need any more to allow wrong think and wrong speech. /S
In seriousness though, this fight is not new at all. The fact that somebody felt the need to state that quote means the same debate existed back then.
>> I don't think there's any speech, including hate speech, that I would ban
How many times do we have to experience a charismatic (or just populist) leader using hate speech to compel great evil though? I don't want to wait until after the act to try and hold them accountable.
How many times do we have to experience a charismatic (or just populist) leader using hate speech to compel great evil though? I don't want to wait until after the act to try and hold them accountable.
today’s issues with free speech boil down to that historically there were huge barriers to communicating with a mass audience, and now there are not, and how we deal with the consequences of that
Some fashionable variants on that maxim these days:
* I disapprove of what you say and will label you a terrorist / communist / traitor / Putin-puppet / etc. regardless of whether those epithets actually have anything to do with it.
* I disapprove of what you say and will demand you be silenced or canceled in the name of creating a safe friendly environment.
* I disapprove of what you say and use my social media company connections to make sure the algorithm suppresses you. Eh, why even bother? They probably do it automatically already anyway and just direct everybody to safe vetted opinions.
* I disapprove of what you say and will label you a terrorist / communist / traitor / Putin-puppet / etc. regardless of whether those epithets actually have anything to do with it.
* I disapprove of what you say and will demand you be silenced or canceled in the name of creating a safe friendly environment.
* I disapprove of what you say and use my social media company connections to make sure the algorithm suppresses you. Eh, why even bother? They probably do it automatically already anyway and just direct everybody to safe vetted opinions.
Independent of the other threads here (talking about freedom from prosecution from government vs private companies vs individual reputation)
And everyone talking about their own limitations on free speech (I support Bernie Sanders, but I draw the line at Trans rights)
I think it's also worth noting the changes in expectations of magnitude of reactions and reprisal for free speech today vs say Voltaire's age.
Reputation and shame used to drive so much of our public discourse. Whenever you hear about people challenging each other over some disagreement or disapproval, it's always the most benign stuff.
In that context, saying "not only will I not challenge you to a dual for disagreeing with me, but I will actually fight to PROTECT your right to say it" is pretty revolutionary stuff.
We should ask Voltaire (or whoever was actually responsible) if he would feel the same way if the person who he disapproved of was a person of significant means and power and was calling for the destruction of Voltaire's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
So when people today scream about cancel culture because of some heinous shit they said about black or trans people, then use this quote to suggest that we should be defending to the death their right to call for systemic discrimination and repression of others....it's just not the same.
And everyone talking about their own limitations on free speech (I support Bernie Sanders, but I draw the line at Trans rights)
I think it's also worth noting the changes in expectations of magnitude of reactions and reprisal for free speech today vs say Voltaire's age.
Reputation and shame used to drive so much of our public discourse. Whenever you hear about people challenging each other over some disagreement or disapproval, it's always the most benign stuff.
In that context, saying "not only will I not challenge you to a dual for disagreeing with me, but I will actually fight to PROTECT your right to say it" is pretty revolutionary stuff.
We should ask Voltaire (or whoever was actually responsible) if he would feel the same way if the person who he disapproved of was a person of significant means and power and was calling for the destruction of Voltaire's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
So when people today scream about cancel culture because of some heinous shit they said about black or trans people, then use this quote to suggest that we should be defending to the death their right to call for systemic discrimination and repression of others....it's just not the same.
> Voltaire? François-Marie Arouet?
Ha! Voltaire is François-Marie Arouet! Oh dear!
Ha! Voltaire is François-Marie Arouet! Oh dear!
My observation about free speech: It's a cyclical thing.
"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one side, and "People must be protected from wrongthink" is the other side. Our democratic societies cycle back and forth between them, like clockwork. Often in the process, the "left" and "right" side of the traditional political spectrum swap stances on free speech (sometimes multiple times). In the 1950s, when McCarthyism was rampant, it was the left that wanted the right to free expression, even if it meant protecting communist agitators. Now, it's the left that wants strict rules on what can be said, because Trumpism made them think that wrongthink itself is a threat to democracy. It'll swap back, in time. It always does.
"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one side, and "People must be protected from wrongthink" is the other side. Our democratic societies cycle back and forth between them, like clockwork. Often in the process, the "left" and "right" side of the traditional political spectrum swap stances on free speech (sometimes multiple times). In the 1950s, when McCarthyism was rampant, it was the left that wanted the right to free expression, even if it meant protecting communist agitators. Now, it's the left that wants strict rules on what can be said, because Trumpism made them think that wrongthink itself is a threat to democracy. It'll swap back, in time. It always does.
This! This is what freedom of speech is really about!
[deleted]
to the death? really? What about your family? your dependents? Sorry love, it looks like you'll have to pay the mortgage.
In recent years has become the rather less inspirational:
"I disapprove of what you say and I will do what I can with a mob to ruin your reputation and career as an example to make sure nobody else says it"
"I disapprove of what you say and I will do what I can with a mob to ruin your reputation and career as an example to make sure nobody else says it"
"I disapprove of what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it"
Hahaha this reminds of a Romanian politician who had returned to Romania after the revolution and wanted to become president. He was recognizable by his style of wearing a bowtie amongst a sea of ties. He used to utter this same quote to the people but it fell on deaf ears because people wanted products not rights. He never won and is all but forgotten even in the country he wanted to steer in the right direction.
Hahaha this reminds of a Romanian politician who had returned to Romania after the revolution and wanted to become president. He was recognizable by his style of wearing a bowtie amongst a sea of ties. He used to utter this same quote to the people but it fell on deaf ears because people wanted products not rights. He never won and is all but forgotten even in the country he wanted to steer in the right direction.
Quote sadly has not held up will in the last couple decades. We are now led by a louder more extreme minority that aggressively police’s discussion points.
For example I am mostly liberal and was a fan of Bernie Sanders. However in my personal case I don’t believe transgender and gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on still developing minors.
The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater .. etc. Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced through bullying and harassment.
No room or in there is not even any desire for real discussion … it is just accept these things as “truth” or be labeled some form of hater.
It wasn’t so long ago that real discussion still happened on platforms like reddit and others …now it is curated to the point of nonsense.
For example I am mostly liberal and was a fan of Bernie Sanders. However in my personal case I don’t believe transgender and gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on still developing minors.
The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater .. etc. Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced through bullying and harassment.
No room or in there is not even any desire for real discussion … it is just accept these things as “truth” or be labeled some form of hater.
It wasn’t so long ago that real discussion still happened on platforms like reddit and others …now it is curated to the point of nonsense.
Today’s left leaners: “I disapprove with what you say, so I will get angry and harass until you agree with me”
These days you can offend people by saying anything. Talking to people became kind of a mine field.
Such quotes are close to fiction.
Such quotes are close to fiction.