The global gag on free speech is tightening(economist.com)
economist.com
The global gag on free speech is tightening
https://www.economist.com/international/2019/08/17/the-global-gag-on-free-speech-is-tightening
138 コメント
[deleted]
What about climate change? Should we continue to give a platform to climate change deniers?
Keep countering with better arguments. They'll gain support if they can point at an actual conspiracy silencing them.
You can't counter someone with arguments when they have lost touch with reality. It is a losing proposition no matter what, because you are just losing energy throwing arguments at a literal wall of ignorance.
This sort of trolling (or god forbid actual ignorance) does not deserve a voice anywhere. There are plenty of people with disturbed thinking we don't spend time listening to and we do this because we already know it won't make a lick of difference: At the end of the day, they're still not capable of thinking coherent thoughts no matter how much you talk at them.
This sort of trolling (or god forbid actual ignorance) does not deserve a voice anywhere. There are plenty of people with disturbed thinking we don't spend time listening to and we do this because we already know it won't make a lick of difference: At the end of the day, they're still not capable of thinking coherent thoughts no matter how much you talk at them.
It's the audience you need to convince, not the other side. Banning them makes your position look weak.
The only people that the position would "look weak" to would be people who don't understand what it means when something is just a verifiable truth. I would posit you lose nothing by ignoring them.
And once all of the political capital and opportunity cost has gone into proving that science is true it will be too late to do anything to save us.
Color me unconvinced.
Color me unconvinced.
If it can't be questioned, it's not science. All the labcoats and vials in the world can't make you a scientist if you don't believe in inquiry.
> deplatforming to silence opposing views
I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views.
> Free speech is a fundamental good that must be protected
The freedom of speech and association comes with a corollary: the freedom to dissociate and shun. So welcome to the consequences of being on the other side of progress, I suppose? This is what happens.
> progressive left
Do you mean social democratic left?
I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views.
> Free speech is a fundamental good that must be protected
The freedom of speech and association comes with a corollary: the freedom to dissociate and shun. So welcome to the consequences of being on the other side of progress, I suppose? This is what happens.
> progressive left
Do you mean social democratic left?
Hate speech is protected speech. The "fire in a theater" argument was forced as the justice was grabbing at straws in an attempt to protect the war effort. He later admitted it was a poor ruling.
To understand why all speech is protected realize that the first amendment is partly to prevent arguments about which speech is permissible from occurring by allowing all of it. So... by saying "hate speech is not allowed" you are having the argument that was supposed to not be had.
To understand why all speech is protected realize that the first amendment is partly to prevent arguments about which speech is permissible from occurring by allowing all of it. So... by saying "hate speech is not allowed" you are having the argument that was supposed to not be had.
> Hate speech is protected speech.
Protected against the government, but not protected against community ostracization.
Protected against the government, but not protected against community ostracization.
Yes, I know, it's been brought up plenty. But keep in mind "hate speech is protected" is not popular in most legal circles (but is kind of accepted with most people I know, and has some major dissenting legal opinions in support of it).
Did you miss all the Stallman threads we just had?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21120806
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21103133
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21088690
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21120806
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21103133
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21088690
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583
Are MIT's or FSF's decisions "deplatforming"?
He was more "canceled" than "deplatformed". They call it "cancel culture" now.
Maybe not technically, but that's irrelevant. It's part of the phenomenon being discussed.
I saw them. What do they have to do with deplatforming?
Who decides what's hate speech? Aren't white nationalists necessarily guilty of too much white people love?
I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views.
James Damore. And if you believe what he said really was hate speech, that just illustrates the problem.
James Damore. And if you believe what he said really was hate speech, that just illustrates the problem.
He got fired for violating his company’s code of conduct. I do not think that qualifies as “deplatforming.”
No offense, but bullshit. He got fired because Google didn't want to be associated with him due to public opinion from the left demonizing him for things he didn't even say. They used the code of conduct violation purely as an excuse. I'm 100% certain HN Googlers could provide 100 examples of violations that did not result in someone getting fired.
I’m not claiming that the code of conduct accusation is or isn’t justified. My point is that he got fired from one normal job (i.e. not a role with a significant public-facing component, like an actor or TV personality or comedian or writer or YouTube creator) for saying things about his employer that for one reason or another the employer very much didn’t like. Do you genuinely think his case qualifies as “deplatforming?” I think that would be an extremely broad application of the term “deplatforming.”
I think getting caught up in the "but does it fit the definition of deplatforming?" is a pretty obvious distraction from the issue.
> I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views.
This is the initial comment we are discussing. It’s a pretty specific choice of words, so it’s not unreasonable to continue the discussion based on a reasonable interpretation of those actual words.
That claim is the specific issue being discussed, so I don’t think it’s a distraction. If you’re interested in some other issue, then by all means openly discuss that.
If the challenge was just to name any event that has occurred that didn’t involve hate speech, then sure, we can list many such events.
This is the initial comment we are discussing. It’s a pretty specific choice of words, so it’s not unreasonable to continue the discussion based on a reasonable interpretation of those actual words.
That claim is the specific issue being discussed, so I don’t think it’s a distraction. If you’re interested in some other issue, then by all means openly discuss that.
If the challenge was just to name any event that has occurred that didn’t involve hate speech, then sure, we can list many such events.
No, that's ebg13 trying to narrow the scope of the discussion so they don't have to address the issue. The same thing that's happening in this subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143570
Your quote is a response to throwawaysea's comment, which is clearly much more general than that:
>Leaving aside culture wars waged by individuals, I see institutional tightening on free speech all over America. I see it in big tech companies, where only a progressive monoculture exists with no psychological safety for other viewpoints. I see it in censorship applied by defacto digital public squares like YouTube. I see it in the left's rampant use of deplatforming to silence opposing views. Increasingly, I also see it in universities (see this incident at the University of Washington today https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-was...).
Your quote is a response to throwawaysea's comment, which is clearly much more general than that:
>Leaving aside culture wars waged by individuals, I see institutional tightening on free speech all over America. I see it in big tech companies, where only a progressive monoculture exists with no psychological safety for other viewpoints. I see it in censorship applied by defacto digital public squares like YouTube. I see it in the left's rampant use of deplatforming to silence opposing views. Increasingly, I also see it in universities (see this incident at the University of Washington today https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-was...).
No, I really was intentionally replying in a subthread about a clearly-worded request for examples involving deplatforming.
Frankly, all those things that people are going "is it deplatforming?" pretty much are deplatforming, but I figured pointing out the distraction tactic was worth more than engaging in the argument over definitions.
I remember reading that google said that they would not fire someone for voicing their opinion but I can't find the source right now.
[deleted]
You heard his speech, millions heard his speech. In what way was he censored?
1) There was no speech. There was a well-reasoned essay worth reading even if you disagree with it.
2) Virtually no one actually read his essay in its entirety, including the media figures and bloggers who commented on it incessantly. His actual message and claims were completely ignored or outright twisted to fit a specific narrative. The fact that you had to go all the way to places like the Joe Rogan podcast to listen to him actually explain his thoughts without being editorialized was insane.
3) He lost his job as a direct result.
2) Virtually no one actually read his essay in its entirety, including the media figures and bloggers who commented on it incessantly. His actual message and claims were completely ignored or outright twisted to fit a specific narrative. The fact that you had to go all the way to places like the Joe Rogan podcast to listen to him actually explain his thoughts without being editorialized was insane.
3) He lost his job as a direct result.
I read his essay, and yes, it did get seriously distorted to demonize him.
However, it was not well written nor was it particularly well reasoned. While there were some potentially good ideas buried it it, they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood.
I think critical debunking of where he went wrong and charitable interpretation of some of the things he may have gotten right would have been far more effective.
Unfortunately it was pulled into the morass that is partisanship in US these days. (I personally harbor a suspicion that this was deliberate and that he fully intended to get himself fired given the way that it and numerous other personal details of googlers got leaked in the lead up to his firing).
However, it was not well written nor was it particularly well reasoned. While there were some potentially good ideas buried it it, they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood.
I think critical debunking of where he went wrong and charitable interpretation of some of the things he may have gotten right would have been far more effective.
Unfortunately it was pulled into the morass that is partisanship in US these days. (I personally harbor a suspicion that this was deliberate and that he fully intended to get himself fired given the way that it and numerous other personal details of googlers got leaked in the lead up to his firing).
>they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood.
I didn't read his essay or follow this case at all, but from Wikipedia it seems he was arguing that biological differences between the sexes are a driving factor for the lack of women programmers at Google. That's a position that's solidly backed by the science.
I didn't read his essay or follow this case at all, but from Wikipedia it seems he was arguing that biological differences between the sexes are a driving factor for the lack of women programmers at Google. That's a position that's solidly backed by the science.
And he based some of his example on "facts" tht were debunked in the 70s. In fact i think i remember one of his argument was so easily recognisable as debunked that i thought "Well, writting a paper on sociology without having ever read sociology papers, who taught this guy?". It's not even Donning-kruger, because he did not even had the basics.
I mean, come on, if it was a paper in any other field, even economy, people here at HN would have either ignored him or called him out.
Anyway he was dumb and should not have been fired (unless this essay looked like his work at Google).
I mean, come on, if it was a paper in any other field, even economy, people here at HN would have either ignored him or called him out.
Anyway he was dumb and should not have been fired (unless this essay looked like his work at Google).
The point of my downvoted comment is that Damore is not a good example of censored speech. You guys are on here discussing the essay because it is famous. Millions of people read it. Not sure why I was downvoted for pointing that out except that there seems to be a cult of defending the guy.
Millions read it only because of the backlash, but what about all the people who didn't speak up because of the fear of getting abused by angry mobs and fired? You can't pretend a censorship attempt isn't one just because it backfired and failed.
Maybe there's also an effect where people try to be controversial in order to get attention, because it plays in to a narrative that makes a lot people feel better about themselves because they find someone to blame for their problems. Don't you think?
"You all are inferior because of your gender"
That's the definition of creating a vicious and predatory workplace. Hence, fired.
Not to mention every source he quoted came out saying that the information was misused.
That's the definition of creating a vicious and predatory workplace. Hence, fired.
Not to mention every source he quoted came out saying that the information was misused.
That’s not what he said.
But really, this only highlights the real problem: if you censor someone, you can accuse them of having said anything because, by virtue of having censored the person, there’s no way for anyone to know better. Obviously many of us actually can still read Damore’s writeup, but that’s largely because the censorship isn’t actually effective yet. I’m just impressed that still doesn’t stop the would-be censors from lying about the stuff they’re trying to censor!
But really, this only highlights the real problem: if you censor someone, you can accuse them of having said anything because, by virtue of having censored the person, there’s no way for anyone to know better. Obviously many of us actually can still read Damore’s writeup, but that’s largely because the censorship isn’t actually effective yet. I’m just impressed that still doesn’t stop the would-be censors from lying about the stuff they’re trying to censor!
He never said that. Different != Inferior
You're both right.
Freedom of speech is important.
And Freedom of Association is important.
Everyone has a right to say what they please. And everyone has a right to associate with whoever they please.
If you don't like what someone says, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go listen to someone else, I guess? But you can't make the guy you don't like stop talking. That's attacking his freedom.
If people don't want to associate with you, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go find different friends, or don't be a douchebag, I guess? But you can't force people who don't like you to associate with you. That's attacking their freedom.
Hate speech may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
"Deplatforming", whatever that is, may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
Freedom of speech is important.
And Freedom of Association is important.
Everyone has a right to say what they please. And everyone has a right to associate with whoever they please.
If you don't like what someone says, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go listen to someone else, I guess? But you can't make the guy you don't like stop talking. That's attacking his freedom.
If people don't want to associate with you, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go find different friends, or don't be a douchebag, I guess? But you can't force people who don't like you to associate with you. That's attacking their freedom.
Hate speech may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
"Deplatforming", whatever that is, may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
I completely agree. YouTube doesn't have to show content they don't like.
But if they want to behave like a publisher, they need to be prepared to be legislated as a publisher.
But if they want to behave like a publisher, they need to be prepared to be legislated as a publisher.
>But if they want to behave like a publisher, they need to be prepared to be legislated as a publisher.
And that's the difference between digital and paper. What digital properties have discovered is that, regardless of whether or not they behave like a publisher, they will be held accountable for the actions of their users. (Believe me, the blue jackets are always at your door after every mass shooting. At times, they are there during the mass shooting.) So you may as well be a publisher and at least be able to make some money.
And that's the difference between digital and paper. What digital properties have discovered is that, regardless of whether or not they behave like a publisher, they will be held accountable for the actions of their users. (Believe me, the blue jackets are always at your door after every mass shooting. At times, they are there during the mass shooting.) So you may as well be a publisher and at least be able to make some money.
What publisher legislation? Freedom of the press is in the same constitutional amendment as freedom of speech.
A free press is still accountable to the law. If the press slanders somebody, or publishes illegal content they are liable for it. That is, unless they publish it as user generated content, which was a legal loophole created in the mid 90s to protect websites from liability for user submitted comments. It used to be that if you did not moderate the comments, you were not liable for them (think net neutrality), as you were simply acting as a common carrier. Since that law was passed, you are now free to moderate and editorialize user generated content in any way you see fit, as well as enjoy complete immunity from all liability that would otherwise be associated with that (think the exact opposite of net neutrality).
I replied to another post about this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21145050
If you follow my link to Professor Cliff Mass's blog post about censorship at the University of Washington, you would see a bit about when he used the phrase "pigs at a trough". This phrasing was - as ridiculous as it may sound - cast as a racist comment by activists, and used as a means of attack against him. Here's the relevant bits:
> In that blog, I discussed the issue of politically well-connected groups securing funds at the public trough and used the century-old political metaphor of “pigs at a trough”, not in the text, but in a single picture (see below).
> This metaphor is frequently used in the media and books, such as Arianna Huffington’s hard hitting book on political corruption in America, which described the greed of the politically connected (see below).
> The activist students claimed that such a metaphor was racist because some members of the 1631 consortium were from minority groups. They ignored the fact that the 1631 coalition was overwhelmingly white and well-to-do. The fact I was expressing political opinions outside the UW did not seem important to them, nor did they care about the concept of freedom of speech. They wanted the department and college administration to do something about me and my blog.
> Will the College of Environment Deans Accuse Arianna Huffington of Racism? Or Australian Adam Schwab? And shamefully and potentially illegally, the Atmospheric Sciences chair and COENV Deans, ignoring First Amendment protections and the essential principles of an academic institution, did exactly what the students wanted
> Between the end of October and early November 2018, Department Chairman Dale Durran, COENV Associate Dean of Research Robert Wood, COENV Associate Dean of Administration Stephanie Harrington, and COENV Assistant Dean of Diversity Terryl Ross wrote a letter attacking my blog that was formally approved by Dean Lisa Graumlich. (all of this is documented in their internal emails).
> Their letter, “Message on Departmental Civility”, was sent to MY ENTIRE DEPARTMENT (including staff, faculty, and students—over 120 people) on November 22, stating that my blog “included imagery and text that was racially insensitive and caused offense.” The letter accused me of racism through the statement “Racism is in direct contradiction to our shared values and has no place in our college” as well as suggesting that I harmed the community through my blog.
> This letter was not only inappropriate and arguably unethical but a violation of University of Washington faculty code, including the protection of academic freedom.
> UW administrators were sanctioning and shaming a faculty member inside the university for expressing political free speech outside of the UW: also an apparent violation of constitutionally protected freedom of speech at a public university. Importantly, freedom of speech is protected BOTH inside and outside a public university by the U.S. and Washington State constitutions.
There are numerous examples to point at, but this is a very recent one showing how far the definition of 'hate speech' has been stretched. By making every issue political, and every issue one of oppression, the notion of intersectionality has been twisted to weaponize rhetoric and curtail free speech. I think that is very bad for healing divisiveness and operating a rational society.
> In that blog, I discussed the issue of politically well-connected groups securing funds at the public trough and used the century-old political metaphor of “pigs at a trough”, not in the text, but in a single picture (see below).
> This metaphor is frequently used in the media and books, such as Arianna Huffington’s hard hitting book on political corruption in America, which described the greed of the politically connected (see below).
> The activist students claimed that such a metaphor was racist because some members of the 1631 consortium were from minority groups. They ignored the fact that the 1631 coalition was overwhelmingly white and well-to-do. The fact I was expressing political opinions outside the UW did not seem important to them, nor did they care about the concept of freedom of speech. They wanted the department and college administration to do something about me and my blog.
> Will the College of Environment Deans Accuse Arianna Huffington of Racism? Or Australian Adam Schwab? And shamefully and potentially illegally, the Atmospheric Sciences chair and COENV Deans, ignoring First Amendment protections and the essential principles of an academic institution, did exactly what the students wanted
> Between the end of October and early November 2018, Department Chairman Dale Durran, COENV Associate Dean of Research Robert Wood, COENV Associate Dean of Administration Stephanie Harrington, and COENV Assistant Dean of Diversity Terryl Ross wrote a letter attacking my blog that was formally approved by Dean Lisa Graumlich. (all of this is documented in their internal emails).
> Their letter, “Message on Departmental Civility”, was sent to MY ENTIRE DEPARTMENT (including staff, faculty, and students—over 120 people) on November 22, stating that my blog “included imagery and text that was racially insensitive and caused offense.” The letter accused me of racism through the statement “Racism is in direct contradiction to our shared values and has no place in our college” as well as suggesting that I harmed the community through my blog.
> This letter was not only inappropriate and arguably unethical but a violation of University of Washington faculty code, including the protection of academic freedom.
> UW administrators were sanctioning and shaming a faculty member inside the university for expressing political free speech outside of the UW: also an apparent violation of constitutionally protected freedom of speech at a public university. Importantly, freedom of speech is protected BOTH inside and outside a public university by the U.S. and Washington State constitutions.
There are numerous examples to point at, but this is a very recent one showing how far the definition of 'hate speech' has been stretched. By making every issue political, and every issue one of oppression, the notion of intersectionality has been twisted to weaponize rhetoric and curtail free speech. I think that is very bad for healing divisiveness and operating a rational society.
It doesn't help the conversation to suggest that the speech that's being deplatformed is unpalatable. That's practically a tautology. You don't have to protect approved speech. I recommend this speech by Frederick Douglass against deplatforming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w2i5CnZ9Xo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w2i5CnZ9Xo
Free speech is completely unrelated to deplatforming, regardless whether you believe that’s happening or not. Only the government is required to permit free speech, Twitter isn’t, YouTube isn’t, and neither is Fox or Breitbart. Private companies do not have any responsibility to permit speech they disagree with.
No “left winger” (America doesn’t have a left, it has a center right and a far right) has proposed amending the constitution to eliminate free speech. At best they're hoping to move the Overton window.
No “left winger” (America doesn’t have a left, it has a center right and a far right) has proposed amending the constitution to eliminate free speech. At best they're hoping to move the Overton window.
No, free speech is fundamental principle that is not tied to the government. You are conflating free speech and the first amendment as it exists in the US. Private companies that control as much of information exchange as modern tech companies do are serving as a digital public square. They should not have the authority to censor legal speech.
Also, America definitely has a far left. Claiming that the most-left cohort of America is center-right is completely disconnected from reality.
Also, America definitely has a far left. Claiming that the most-left cohort of America is center-right is completely disconnected from reality.
You're making up a free speech principle that could not have existed before the internet. Before the internet if a random nobody wanted to broadcast a message to millions of people the best they could hope for is that a newspaper would publish their letter to the editor. The newspaper editor was ruthless in censoring whatever they felt like.
> No, free speech is fundamental principle that is not tied to the government. You are conflating free speech and the first amendment as it exists in the US. Private companies that control as much of information exchange as modern tech companies do are serving as a digital public square. They should not have the authority to censor legal speech.
No, it's not. Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment. Anything beyond that is offered by companies because they hope to make money. You can't compel YouTube to speak any more than you can compel them to stop speaking, to offer you a platform or to take one away. That's not what is guaranteed you as an American.
You never had the right to publish anything you want in the newspaper and that hasn’t changed with Twitter.
> Also, America definitely has a far left. Claiming that the most-left cohort of America is center-right is completely disconnected from reality.
Not in mainstream politics. Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies.
Find my a single other "far left" politician not 100% committed to socialized medicine, anywhere on earth.
No, it's not. Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment. Anything beyond that is offered by companies because they hope to make money. You can't compel YouTube to speak any more than you can compel them to stop speaking, to offer you a platform or to take one away. That's not what is guaranteed you as an American.
You never had the right to publish anything you want in the newspaper and that hasn’t changed with Twitter.
> Also, America definitely has a far left. Claiming that the most-left cohort of America is center-right is completely disconnected from reality.
Not in mainstream politics. Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies.
Find my a single other "far left" politician not 100% committed to socialized medicine, anywhere on earth.
> Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment.
Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo.
> Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies.
As for your claim that Democrats are center-right by "world standards". The world's largest Democracy is India and Democrats would absolutely not be center-right there. Nor in most of Europe. You are likely taking a thin slice of select European countries like Sweden - who themselves are confused at the claims made by the American left about Swedish politics - and casting that as the barometer for what is left, center, or right.
Pick whatever semantic label you feel comfortable with. I am talking about the Progressive Left, which is described here as "Progressive Activists": https://hiddentribes.us/profiles
Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo.
> Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies.
As for your claim that Democrats are center-right by "world standards". The world's largest Democracy is India and Democrats would absolutely not be center-right there. Nor in most of Europe. You are likely taking a thin slice of select European countries like Sweden - who themselves are confused at the claims made by the American left about Swedish politics - and casting that as the barometer for what is left, center, or right.
Pick whatever semantic label you feel comfortable with. I am talking about the Progressive Left, which is described here as "Progressive Activists": https://hiddentribes.us/profiles
> Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo.
Your rights end where mine begin, is the case I'm making.
By forcing me to offer you a platform you're violating my rights to free speech. A right to speak must also follow a right not to speak in the way freedom of religion must also necessarily involve a freedom from religion. You can't make me, a private entity, tell your story in your words. I certainly don't expect Breitbart to publish my feelings on how America doesn't have a "left" using my words. Should I be able to force you to publish my essay on your blog?
I can't actually think of a time when "free speech" as you describe it ever existed. There's never been a country where media was required by law to publish whatever was given them. Certainly not in feudal days, not in the industrial revolution, and not today.
Your rights end where mine begin, is the case I'm making.
By forcing me to offer you a platform you're violating my rights to free speech. A right to speak must also follow a right not to speak in the way freedom of religion must also necessarily involve a freedom from religion. You can't make me, a private entity, tell your story in your words. I certainly don't expect Breitbart to publish my feelings on how America doesn't have a "left" using my words. Should I be able to force you to publish my essay on your blog?
I can't actually think of a time when "free speech" as you describe it ever existed. There's never been a country where media was required by law to publish whatever was given them. Certainly not in feudal days, not in the industrial revolution, and not today.
Just wondering, what do you think about a company refusing to serve a gay person? Would they have the freedom of association?
Even if you say that they should be free to not serve said person, this still does not make it ethical - just like if you start calling homosexuals slurs out of nowhere, just because you are free to do it, it does not mean that you won't be an asshole.
Even if you say that they should be free to not serve said person, this still does not make it ethical - just like if you start calling homosexuals slurs out of nowhere, just because you are free to do it, it does not mean that you won't be an asshole.
The question is not about what is guaranteed but about what should be guaranteed. By deciding what to show and what to hide google breaks the implicit contract made with me as a consumer: which is i gladly give up privacy, do not use an adblocker, vote against politicians who try to harm googles busyness, and in return get the information i am interested in. If they want to harm me by hiding information, i'll try to fight back so that another company could take their place. But this whole "fighting" is unproductive and harmful for the society, that's why we need to introduce fair rules to regulate such conflicts.
In some states free speech extends to private property that serves public function like a mall or square.
Free speech is completely unrelated to deplatforming only if you ascribe to the purely legal definition of it. Many others consider free speech to be much more than a legal concept; it's an ideal that is worthwhile as much in private contexts as it is in public.
[deleted]
Indeed, which is why Youtube is totally within their right to demonetize LGBTQ+ content (any content really, regardless of subject) if it's not acceptable to their advertisers. If you're comfortable with platforms deplatforming what you don't agree with, be prepared to become comfortable with them deplatforming whatever they want, whenever they want.
Do you really think it is appropriate for Visa or Mastercard to decline to process payments for Wikileaks? Or for Youtube to demonetize Conservative voices? These platforms control way too much of today's commerce and speech to be treated as just private corporations exercising their rights. That is a disingenuous disregard for the principle of free speech, which is again, more fundamental than the notion of free speech enshrined in current American law.
Do I want them to do those things? No, definitely not.
Do I think there's a basis for my forcing my views on them? Also no. I think it's difficult because you're looking at a change from the status quo. I'd suggest looking at it from a young upstart business perspective. If a new payment processor wants to start up that doesn't cater to the right -- or to the left -- should that be illegal? Probably not. Is it likely to happen and become successful? No, it's a terrible business decision.
Do I think there's a basis for my forcing my views on them? Also no. I think it's difficult because you're looking at a change from the status quo. I'd suggest looking at it from a young upstart business perspective. If a new payment processor wants to start up that doesn't cater to the right -- or to the left -- should that be illegal? Probably not. Is it likely to happen and become successful? No, it's a terrible business decision.
I'm curious, how far does your belief in freedom of association extend? Should a business be allowed to refuse service to someone because they are black, for example? Does your answer change depending of whether that business has many competitors (e.g. a cake shop) or is a near-total monopoly (e.g. google)?
Oof, that's a tough one.
> Should a business be allowed to refuse service to someone because they are black, for example?
Is it distasteful? Yeah. Is it a good business model? Nope. Should they be forced to do something they don't want to do? It's hard to say. Discriminatory behavior shouldn't happen, and where it creates material harm (employment, for instance) recourse must exist. Otherwise, I don't know, where no harm occurs it's difficult to justify forcing action.
> Does your answer change depending of whether that business has many competitors (e.g. a cake shop) or is a near-total monopoly (e.g. google)?
I'd suggest when something becomes essential and doesn't have competition then it becomes "de facto infrastructure" and open access rules are justified.
I'm trying to come to a conclusion myself here. Thanks for making me think this through!
> Should a business be allowed to refuse service to someone because they are black, for example?
Is it distasteful? Yeah. Is it a good business model? Nope. Should they be forced to do something they don't want to do? It's hard to say. Discriminatory behavior shouldn't happen, and where it creates material harm (employment, for instance) recourse must exist. Otherwise, I don't know, where no harm occurs it's difficult to justify forcing action.
> Does your answer change depending of whether that business has many competitors (e.g. a cake shop) or is a near-total monopoly (e.g. google)?
I'd suggest when something becomes essential and doesn't have competition then it becomes "de facto infrastructure" and open access rules are justified.
I'm trying to come to a conclusion myself here. Thanks for making me think this through!
[deleted]
I am. I don’t go to breitbart because I don’t agree with them. If YouTube started doing things I didn’t agree with I’d mosey on too. That’s not entirely true because I still watch an awful lot of Fox but the spirit remains. They don’t tell me what to say and I don’t tell them what to say.
> No “left winger” (America doesn’t have a left, it has a center right and a far right)
If we separate this into social and fiscal dimensions or authoritarian and economic dimensions (e.g. the Political Compass), the US certainly does have a major party that's left in some key ways. Assuming at least a few other western countries also have a left by this standard.
If we separate this into social and fiscal dimensions or authoritarian and economic dimensions (e.g. the Political Compass), the US certainly does have a major party that's left in some key ways. Assuming at least a few other western countries also have a left by this standard.
michannne(1)
> I see free speech coming under attack from the progressive left constituency, rather than the government.
Oh please. The right is just as guilty. The Dixie Chicks got canceled for the better part of the 2000s for daring to speak against the Iraq War and Bush.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/04/university-of-...
That got Dean Jamie Riley fired.
Colin Kaepernick got canceled by the right.
I'm sure there's numerous more examples to be found if we dug into it, but let's not pretend that these attacks on free speech are a purely left wing thing.
Oh please. The right is just as guilty. The Dixie Chicks got canceled for the better part of the 2000s for daring to speak against the Iraq War and Bush.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/04/university-of-...
That got Dean Jamie Riley fired.
Colin Kaepernick got canceled by the right.
I'm sure there's numerous more examples to be found if we dug into it, but let's not pretend that these attacks on free speech are a purely left wing thing.
Yes, you're right this phenomenon isn't purely a left-wing one, and I think it is wrong when either side does it. I pointed at the left just because these days I see it most often done by the left, and in recent times, it is accomplished by going to service providers (like payment processors) and pressuring them to fire a client. For the record, I thought it was wrong for networks to drop the Dixie Chicks as they did.
Partisanship has been increasing in the US and I expect things to get much worse before they get better. If only our government wasn't designed in such as way as to make stoking that fire so such a successful strategy.
Not just the US. I think this is being driven by the social dynamics of the Internet. Things like filter bubbles and click-driven journalism. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter shape discussions in particular ways that are very different than offline.
The larger problem here is that many technology companies have become virtual monopolies. If you can be deplatformed from Youtube + Facebook + Twitter then you will not be heard at all. Afterward, your political opponents can go online on these platforms and call you a 'Nazi' a million times. At this point, what Joseph Goebbels said applies: 'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it'[1]. This causes even more platforms to deplatform you and eventually, it becomes a cycle.
The core of the problem is that these companies are too big, too influential. They must be broken up
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
The core of the problem is that these companies are too big, too influential. They must be broken up
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Yes, totally agree. These big companies must be broken up, or treated with a much greater degree of regulation (effectively holding them to the standards that the government is held to, as sole provider of some functions).
The larger larger problem is that those giants are owned lock stock and two smoking barrels by advertisers. You can say anything you want on the internet so long as it doesn't lose Proctor & Gamble or Mars or Pepsi Co any money.
Oh the land of the freeeeee.....
Oh the land of the freeeeee.....
You say you're worried about freedom of speech in big tech companies and de facto digital public squares, but what you seem to be getting at would actually curtail their freedom of speech. The government forcing private entities to disseminate speech they don't want to — that's where this leads, right?
In reality, no one is a free speech absolutist. We just argue over where the lines should be drawn. Bans on child pornography and threats of violence are pretty uncontroversial abridgements of free speech. Banning harassment and hate speech seems to be a bit less popular. Which is fine, everyone has their own ideas about what's acceptable. But don't draw your line in the sand and then tell me that's what determines "free speech".
In reality, no one is a free speech absolutist. We just argue over where the lines should be drawn. Bans on child pornography and threats of violence are pretty uncontroversial abridgements of free speech. Banning harassment and hate speech seems to be a bit less popular. Which is fine, everyone has their own ideas about what's acceptable. But don't draw your line in the sand and then tell me that's what determines "free speech".
>The government forcing private entities to disseminate speech they don't want to — that's where this leads, right?
I don't think so. Is anyone proposing this as a solution? The parent certainly doesn't seem to be.
I don't think so. Is anyone proposing this as a solution? The parent certainly doesn't seem to be.
The parent, in a reply to a sibling comment to mine [1]:
> Yes, totally agree. These big companies must be broken up, or treated with a much greater degree of regulation (effectively holding them to the standards that the government is held to, as sole provider of some functions).
I am sympathetic to breaking up big companies (albeit because of a dislike of private consolidations of power, rather than a commitment to freedom of speech). But their alternative proposal is exactly the scenario to which I was referring.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143819
> Yes, totally agree. These big companies must be broken up, or treated with a much greater degree of regulation (effectively holding them to the standards that the government is held to, as sole provider of some functions).
I am sympathetic to breaking up big companies (albeit because of a dislike of private consolidations of power, rather than a commitment to freedom of speech). But their alternative proposal is exactly the scenario to which I was referring.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143819
I somehow missed that. His proposal sounds much more narrow however, targeting only companies that have become a "sole provider of some functions". I do think breaking up the monopoly is a no-brainer in this scenario.
I agree with breaking up the monopoly! But again, it's because I dislike concentrated power in general, not because of their power over speech specifically.
My issue here isn't with the idea that we do something about large tech companies. It's the proposal to abridge legal freedom of speech, masquerading as an attempt to protect free speech. OP is presenting this as an objective argument about freedom, when really they just don't like where the lines are drawn.
My issue here isn't with the idea that we do something about large tech companies. It's the proposal to abridge legal freedom of speech, masquerading as an attempt to protect free speech. OP is presenting this as an objective argument about freedom, when really they just don't like where the lines are drawn.
I think we mostly agree. I was just replying to the idea that people are calling for the government to force speech, which felt like a weird notion (though when it comes to the political extremes, I'm sure both sides would love nothing more than total control over what's acceptable speech).
This post contains the two forms of gaslighting most often used to derail any serious discussion on the merits of free speech.
1. Free speech absolutism is actually perfectly reasonable. An absolute stance of free speech doesn’t mean you can’t use speech to commit a crime. If you hire a hit man to kill somebody, you’ve committed a crime, even though the only thing you have done is speak. Nothing about that contradicts an absolute stance on free speech. I have a drivers licence which entitles me to drive a car on public roads. It doesn’t entitle me to run over pedestrians who may be walking on them. Your child pornography example is the same thing. Child pornography is illegal because it involves the crime of sexually abusing children. That’s why it’s illegal, and why drawn or computer generated images or movies depicting sexual acts with children are protected by 1A.
2. Calling for free speech in large online platforms is not curtailing their own right to free speech. The one and only reason large online platforms are allowed to moderate their platforms in anyway they choose is because of a law introduced in the 90s granting them protection from prosecution for the content they publish. If you have an online platform that you don’t moderate, you used to be protected by common carrier laws. If you do choose to moderate it, you are no longer a common carrier, and should be held liable for the content you are now acting as a editor and publisher for. This law was created at a time before large tech companies had monopolised online speech, and really should be revised. Changing it certainly wouldn’t require curtailing anybody’s rights, and every time this comes up I’m honestly surprised by the kind of people who object to it, because the argument you have put forward applies equally as an argument against net neutrality.
1. Free speech absolutism is actually perfectly reasonable. An absolute stance of free speech doesn’t mean you can’t use speech to commit a crime. If you hire a hit man to kill somebody, you’ve committed a crime, even though the only thing you have done is speak. Nothing about that contradicts an absolute stance on free speech. I have a drivers licence which entitles me to drive a car on public roads. It doesn’t entitle me to run over pedestrians who may be walking on them. Your child pornography example is the same thing. Child pornography is illegal because it involves the crime of sexually abusing children. That’s why it’s illegal, and why drawn or computer generated images or movies depicting sexual acts with children are protected by 1A.
2. Calling for free speech in large online platforms is not curtailing their own right to free speech. The one and only reason large online platforms are allowed to moderate their platforms in anyway they choose is because of a law introduced in the 90s granting them protection from prosecution for the content they publish. If you have an online platform that you don’t moderate, you used to be protected by common carrier laws. If you do choose to moderate it, you are no longer a common carrier, and should be held liable for the content you are now acting as a editor and publisher for. This law was created at a time before large tech companies had monopolised online speech, and really should be revised. Changing it certainly wouldn’t require curtailing anybody’s rights, and every time this comes up I’m honestly surprised by the kind of people who object to it, because the argument you have put forward applies equally as an argument against net neutrality.
1. It's possible to make an argument for free speech absolutism, but such a vanishingly small number of people actually believe in it that it's not interesting. If I go around insulting and cursing at all my coworkers, I'm going to be fired — and somehow, I doubt the people who are upset about James Damore's dismissal will be clamoring to defend me. Child pornography is the only law I'm aware of that prohibits taking a picture of a crime. Is it illegal to photograph someone shoplifting? Is it illegal to send someone shoplifting photos I find, even if I had nothing to do with the crime in the first place? Don't kid yourself: it's a limit on free speech that basically everyone is okay with because child pornography is universally reviled.
2. It doesn't matter when certain laws were introduced. The government making legislation forcing private citizens to disseminate speech against their will curtails their freedom of speech, full stop. I'm fine with arguments about what regulations are appropriate, just not in the guise of "platforms must do X to support free speech".
2. It doesn't matter when certain laws were introduced. The government making legislation forcing private citizens to disseminate speech against their will curtails their freedom of speech, full stop. I'm fine with arguments about what regulations are appropriate, just not in the guise of "platforms must do X to support free speech".
Your first point is simply a further contrivance. Allowing workplaces to regulate behaviour is not an encroachment on free speech. Allowing them to regulate thoughts and opinions arguably is. There was nothing wrong with Damore’s behaviour, nobody accused him of bullying anybody. His point of view was the issue. Child sexual abuse is also one of the only crimes committed for the purposes of taking and distributing photos. There’s nothing inherently harmful about selling ivory, yet it’s illegal because it’s trade is the primary reason poaching elephants and rhinos happens.
Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too. You don’t have to compel them to do anything. Simply remove the immunity they have from be held liable for their decisions.
However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different.
Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too. You don’t have to compel them to do anything. Simply remove the immunity they have from be held liable for their decisions.
However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different.
> Your first point is simply a further contrivance. Allowing workplaces to regulate behaviour is not an encroachment on free speech. Allowing them to regulate thoughts and opinions arguably is.
This would be more convincing if the supposed inability to distinguish weren't regularly deployed in favor of free speech "absolutism". "Who decides what's hate speech?" is a common refrain when people call for action against hate speech. Why is the gatekeeper argument valid for racism but not for insults?
> Child sexual abuse is also one of the only crimes committed for the purposes of taking and distributing photos.
This is a non sequitur. Not all child sexual abuse is done with the intent of creating pornography, but even so it doesn't make child pornography bans any less of an abridgement of free speech. You mentioned that selling ivory is illegal, which is an example of a limit on free trade. We oppose these things because we think they're morally wrong and the benefits of prohibition outweigh the drawbacks, not because there's some weird loophole by which they're placed in an entirely different category.
> Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too.
Maybe it's time to revisit the laws protecting them for user-generated content. I'm sympathetic to that idea. But, if you're an absolutist, it would still curtail their freedom of speech.
> However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not making a slippery slope argument about child pornography. I'm saying that the OP is not making a "free speech" argument in the first place; they are merely trying to shift the lines of acceptable speech to be more amenable to them. That's a fine argument, and I'm happy to debate it — just not when it masquerades as "X speech must be protected because Freedom of Speech".
This would be more convincing if the supposed inability to distinguish weren't regularly deployed in favor of free speech "absolutism". "Who decides what's hate speech?" is a common refrain when people call for action against hate speech. Why is the gatekeeper argument valid for racism but not for insults?
> Child sexual abuse is also one of the only crimes committed for the purposes of taking and distributing photos.
This is a non sequitur. Not all child sexual abuse is done with the intent of creating pornography, but even so it doesn't make child pornography bans any less of an abridgement of free speech. You mentioned that selling ivory is illegal, which is an example of a limit on free trade. We oppose these things because we think they're morally wrong and the benefits of prohibition outweigh the drawbacks, not because there's some weird loophole by which they're placed in an entirely different category.
> Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too.
Maybe it's time to revisit the laws protecting them for user-generated content. I'm sympathetic to that idea. But, if you're an absolutist, it would still curtail their freedom of speech.
> However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not making a slippery slope argument about child pornography. I'm saying that the OP is not making a "free speech" argument in the first place; they are merely trying to shift the lines of acceptable speech to be more amenable to them. That's a fine argument, and I'm happy to debate it — just not when it masquerades as "X speech must be protected because Freedom of Speech".
> I'm not making a slippery slope argument about child pornography. I'm saying that the OP is not making a "free speech" argument in the first place
Well now that just sounds like a no true Scotsman argument. Even among absolutists, the idea that torts or other unrelated crimes should be legalized if they contain an element of speech would be considered fringe and extreme.
Well now that just sounds like a no true Scotsman argument. Even among absolutists, the idea that torts or other unrelated crimes should be legalized if they contain an element of speech would be considered fringe and extreme.
It’s not a no true Scotsman argument. What do you think “absolutist” means? (Also, again, with e.g. child pornography and threats of violence, speech is the crime).
Regardless, OP isn’t even talking about crimes. They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech.
Regardless, OP isn’t even talking about crimes. They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech.
> They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech.
Which is simply a straw man argument. The actual legal argument is to allow them to choose between being a common carrier, or accepting liability for the content they publish.
Which is simply a straw man argument. The actual legal argument is to allow them to choose between being a common carrier, or accepting liability for the content they publish.
It's not a straw man; it's exactly what's being proposed. This is an invented dichotomy. If a private entity is not liable for its users' content, it doesn't follow that they then can't moderate that content. We don't hold bars liable for defamatory statements their patrons make, even if they kick out people who say racist things.
If I understand correctly, you're also misapplying common carriage here. Common carrier laws basically say that if all you do is transport things from A to B, you can't discriminate. That already doesn't describe social networks, which do much more than just deliver your speech: they algorithmically promote it, sell ads against it, etc. But OP is speaking even more broadly than that. One example they've brought up is YouTube demonetizing people, which has nothing to do with transmitting speech.
If I understand correctly, you're also misapplying common carriage here. Common carrier laws basically say that if all you do is transport things from A to B, you can't discriminate. That already doesn't describe social networks, which do much more than just deliver your speech: they algorithmically promote it, sell ads against it, etc. But OP is speaking even more broadly than that. One example they've brought up is YouTube demonetizing people, which has nothing to do with transmitting speech.
[deleted]
How about "platforms must be platforms in order to be legally protected as platforms"? Is that a guise, or is it cold honest look at the grip at which FAANG and their lawyers have sunk their teeth into our congress and our public discourse?
This is a consequence of the postmodernist post-truth fragmentation of the political discourse in which words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons.
So I’d argue that there is a dialectic relationship between the speech sensitivity on the left and the post-truth-I-know-it-is-false-but-I-will-say-it-anyways-tactics of the right.
And that isn’t the case because speech is a thing the left wants to take away from the rest of us ― no, speech itself has become the battlefield on which the decisions about the future are carried out. Both the left and the right have understood this. So I said the left and the right are in a dialectic relationship when it comes to speech. Here is what this means: As the discourse is getting more and more unhinged and boundaries we traditionally had are completely gone: things that were unspeakable a decade ago are now said in the news.
So the left is in their own weird way trying to keep control about what should and shouldn’t be said. The right on the other hand tries to expand what can be said, because it gives them an advantage. They literally don’t care about the fallout their language has on society as long as it brings them political power. The raw discourse certainly helps to divide the public into binary camps and the hope on the right is that the speech-aware left can be beaten by a right that is not bound to any ethical consideration when it comes to their choice of words. In fact the reason why the language on the right is so unhinged is because they belive it gives them a tactical advantage and not because any of them believes in free speech per se.
So the left tries to change speech in such a way, that the speaker should become aware of the many realities (race, class, gender, culture, ...) encoded in speech and avoid saying things that negatively impact others. The right literally tries to speak things into existence in a way that acts as a tribal identity in times where tribes cannot exist without friction. So where the left has accepted this post-tribal state of affairs and wants to respect as many realities as possible (and sometimes more) the right does the polar opposite and needs to keep as many realities as possible (and sometimes more) out of their speech in order to maintain the group.
That beeing said they are both phenomena that are rooted in the structural changes our societies are going through as a consequence of the internet and the fall of the soviet union (which meant for the first time capitalism didn’t had a socialist counterpart and there was no need to look social anymore).
So I’d argue that there is a dialectic relationship between the speech sensitivity on the left and the post-truth-I-know-it-is-false-but-I-will-say-it-anyways-tactics of the right.
And that isn’t the case because speech is a thing the left wants to take away from the rest of us ― no, speech itself has become the battlefield on which the decisions about the future are carried out. Both the left and the right have understood this. So I said the left and the right are in a dialectic relationship when it comes to speech. Here is what this means: As the discourse is getting more and more unhinged and boundaries we traditionally had are completely gone: things that were unspeakable a decade ago are now said in the news.
So the left is in their own weird way trying to keep control about what should and shouldn’t be said. The right on the other hand tries to expand what can be said, because it gives them an advantage. They literally don’t care about the fallout their language has on society as long as it brings them political power. The raw discourse certainly helps to divide the public into binary camps and the hope on the right is that the speech-aware left can be beaten by a right that is not bound to any ethical consideration when it comes to their choice of words. In fact the reason why the language on the right is so unhinged is because they belive it gives them a tactical advantage and not because any of them believes in free speech per se.
So the left tries to change speech in such a way, that the speaker should become aware of the many realities (race, class, gender, culture, ...) encoded in speech and avoid saying things that negatively impact others. The right literally tries to speak things into existence in a way that acts as a tribal identity in times where tribes cannot exist without friction. So where the left has accepted this post-tribal state of affairs and wants to respect as many realities as possible (and sometimes more) the right does the polar opposite and needs to keep as many realities as possible (and sometimes more) out of their speech in order to maintain the group.
That beeing said they are both phenomena that are rooted in the structural changes our societies are going through as a consequence of the internet and the fall of the soviet union (which meant for the first time capitalism didn’t had a socialist counterpart and there was no need to look social anymore).
> In fact the reason why the language on the right is so unhinged is because they belive it gives them a tactical advantage and not because any of them believes in free speech per se.
Mindreading.
> They literally don’t care about the fallout their language has on society as long as it brings them political power.
Mindreading. Possible projection too, but I don't want to engage in mindreading.
> become aware of the many realities encoded in speech and avoid saying things that negatively impact others
Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill.
There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons".
s/like/in lieu/, and we should be damn grateful for it.
Mindreading.
> They literally don’t care about the fallout their language has on society as long as it brings them political power.
Mindreading. Possible projection too, but I don't want to engage in mindreading.
> become aware of the many realities encoded in speech and avoid saying things that negatively impact others
Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill.
There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons".
s/like/in lieu/, and we should be damn grateful for it.
> Mindreading.
Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one, but the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way that detracts from your argument (significantly).
> Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill.
This second argument seems like a straw man to me. The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers. GP is instead simply stating that the left happens to have these ideas about speech and that this is the intention of them.
> There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course
Once again, I think that your argument here that free speech is the only way to raise consciousness is an interesting one with significant merit, but the subsequent straw man really derails it. You imply that the GP is "blaspheme[ing]" free speech, but GP does no such thing.
> I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons".
This bit doesn't really add much. "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons" is not a simile, and sneering at GP's use of the word dialectic + the scare quotes doesn't really add anything substantive to your previous assertions.
NB: I suspect that this comment will come off as overly patronizing, and I apologize in advance. I hope that this will at least add to a constructive discussion of this topic, and help other readers focus on some important points in the parent's post.
Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one, but the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way that detracts from your argument (significantly).
> Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill.
This second argument seems like a straw man to me. The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers. GP is instead simply stating that the left happens to have these ideas about speech and that this is the intention of them.
> There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course
Once again, I think that your argument here that free speech is the only way to raise consciousness is an interesting one with significant merit, but the subsequent straw man really derails it. You imply that the GP is "blaspheme[ing]" free speech, but GP does no such thing.
> I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons".
This bit doesn't really add much. "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons" is not a simile, and sneering at GP's use of the word dialectic + the scare quotes doesn't really add anything substantive to your previous assertions.
NB: I suspect that this comment will come off as overly patronizing, and I apologize in advance. I hope that this will at least add to a constructive discussion of this topic, and help other readers focus on some important points in the parent's post.
Thanks for taking the time.
> the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way
Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive, or the subsequent phrasing and is unproductive?
> The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers
Oops, that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point was, JM and JSM would roll over to hear what I saw as GP's (recently revised) weasel words, e.g. "negatively impact" for "harm", employed towards what I saw as GP's desire to delegitimize large swaths of the political spectrum. But maybe that's some mindreading of my own.
I had a visceral reaction to what I read as GP's roundabout argument against free speech. It seems to me like GP is imputing and denouncing the motives of people they dislike, and questioning the legitimacy of people's free speech rights given that GP know's what's in their soul. Do you see where I'm coming from here?
< is not a simile
How not?
> the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way
Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive, or the subsequent phrasing and is unproductive?
> The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers
Oops, that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point was, JM and JSM would roll over to hear what I saw as GP's (recently revised) weasel words, e.g. "negatively impact" for "harm", employed towards what I saw as GP's desire to delegitimize large swaths of the political spectrum. But maybe that's some mindreading of my own.
I had a visceral reaction to what I read as GP's roundabout argument against free speech. It seems to me like GP is imputing and denouncing the motives of people they dislike, and questioning the legitimacy of people's free speech rights given that GP know's what's in their soul. Do you see where I'm coming from here?
< is not a simile
How not?
> Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one
Indeed he had a point there. In my defense, talking about something as vaguely as “the right” or “the left” is always slippery terrain, especially without lenghty definition.
When I write “the right” one person might think about the extreme right fringes while others think I speak about everything right from the center. Additionally right movements from different areas differ, so as someone who grew up in Austria and lives in Germany our right are clearly nazis, while the right in the US might have more diverse movements on top of the classical fascist right that I meant (e.g. libertarians).
Indeed he had a point there. In my defense, talking about something as vaguely as “the right” or “the left” is always slippery terrain, especially without lenghty definition.
When I write “the right” one person might think about the extreme right fringes while others think I speak about everything right from the center. Additionally right movements from different areas differ, so as someone who grew up in Austria and lives in Germany our right are clearly nazis, while the right in the US might have more diverse movements on top of the classical fascist right that I meant (e.g. libertarians).
Is it mindreading if the right does use manufactured truths? And because they do it is not mindreading. There was literally a case where Donald Trump told people the sun shined while it was in fact raining. Bexit with the easiest deal in history, didn’t look as easy in hindsight now that there are 10 says left and they still didn’t even propose one.
As I said: the right tries to speak reality into beeing. You might disagree and and tell me that “everybody” knows these where just figures of speech and not meant to be taken literally, like the thing with the mexicans that will pay for the wall. But wouldn’t that proof my point that the right tries to talk things into existence?
On the other point: The right does suddenly care less about free speech when it is in power (historically) or when the speech doesn’t fit their ideas. Also for that there are countless cases, while I know of no case with a right wing government or dictator where they suddenly valued dissenting voices and free speech.
As you might have guessed I am not an American and while I know free speech is valued immensly in the US, I am afraid that a democracy abolishing fascist movement would find their way to re-interpret it in a way they can jail their enemies (as communist spies or something).
So I am sorry to say this, but desperate tries to bend reality with words will not undo stated fact. Not even with the toxic smile you paint on my face.
As I said: the right tries to speak reality into beeing. You might disagree and and tell me that “everybody” knows these where just figures of speech and not meant to be taken literally, like the thing with the mexicans that will pay for the wall. But wouldn’t that proof my point that the right tries to talk things into existence?
On the other point: The right does suddenly care less about free speech when it is in power (historically) or when the speech doesn’t fit their ideas. Also for that there are countless cases, while I know of no case with a right wing government or dictator where they suddenly valued dissenting voices and free speech.
As you might have guessed I am not an American and while I know free speech is valued immensly in the US, I am afraid that a democracy abolishing fascist movement would find their way to re-interpret it in a way they can jail their enemies (as communist spies or something).
So I am sorry to say this, but desperate tries to bend reality with words will not undo stated fact. Not even with the toxic smile you paint on my face.
It's kind of interesting that this is the exact comment I expected to see.
Obviously, the mockery of "free speech" as "freeze peach" is because the meaning behind that, for a lot of people complaining about it, is that they would like to say something hateful. It's so frequent that it's become a meme.
It's unfortunate, and places that put an emphasis on free speech are shitholes like gab and voat. They would like whatever hate they're selling to have a bigger audience, and it's not really on corporations to provide that.
I would say the term has been co-opted by the right in online spaces, which makes it hard to talk about. It's no longer classical "free speech," almost always you have ask, "what were you trying to say with that free speech?"
Are they being banned for being anti-government? Anti-bank? Anti-military? Anti-religion? The pro- versions of those? Or is it maybe something else. Your vision of a "leftist" crack down, could be interpreted as the "right" getting more extreme and being banned.
Obviously, the mockery of "free speech" as "freeze peach" is because the meaning behind that, for a lot of people complaining about it, is that they would like to say something hateful. It's so frequent that it's become a meme.
It's unfortunate, and places that put an emphasis on free speech are shitholes like gab and voat. They would like whatever hate they're selling to have a bigger audience, and it's not really on corporations to provide that.
I would say the term has been co-opted by the right in online spaces, which makes it hard to talk about. It's no longer classical "free speech," almost always you have ask, "what were you trying to say with that free speech?"
Are they being banned for being anti-government? Anti-bank? Anti-military? Anti-religion? The pro- versions of those? Or is it maybe something else. Your vision of a "leftist" crack down, could be interpreted as the "right" getting more extreme and being banned.
koonsolo(1)
Isn’t there a confusion between free speech and social consequences of opinions? Protection from the second is not a right. Saying something hugely unpopular to a group, no matter the validity of the claim, will generate a strong response from that group. That one group is overly represented for example in Universities is a political problem, not a free speech problem.
If you say something racist in the US, you just get a social (media) outcry. But in France for example, it’s also illegal, so you also literally get a fine.
If you say something racist in the US, you just get a social (media) outcry. But in France for example, it’s also illegal, so you also literally get a fine.
We are entering a time of prim moral panic that echoes the temperance movement and the prohibition era. I don't even bother discussing controversial ideas anymore because apparently there is now a list of approved viewpoints and one isn't allowed to play devil's advocate.
Palahniuk's recent novel Adjustment Day lampooned this state of affairs beautifully but it's ultimately depressing, there seems no alternative but to wait for the free speech pendulum to swing back to open discourse in another 15 years or so.
Palahniuk's recent novel Adjustment Day lampooned this state of affairs beautifully but it's ultimately depressing, there seems no alternative but to wait for the free speech pendulum to swing back to open discourse in another 15 years or so.
This has always been the case. There have always been pressures to conform to social norms and stiff penalties for those who did not.
What has changed is not that people are stricter, it's that what's accepted as normal has changed. The world has turned, and some folks suddenly find themselves in the out group for the first time.
What has changed is not that people are stricter, it's that what's accepted as normal has changed. The world has turned, and some folks suddenly find themselves in the out group for the first time.
I would argue that nothing has significantly changed about cultural norms, except for a widespread acceptance that sexual harassment is unacceptable in the wake of #MeToo.
No, what’s different is that social media allows for decentralized outrage targeting. It can come organically or it can be manufactured by the advertisement-dependent media, autocratic states, PR firms, “social justice warriors”, or other bad actors. That creates the perception of widespread outrage even when its limited to a handful of twitter accounts. But when a few dozen people are so loud you can’t hear the near-silence of everybody else, the rational response is to stop the noise and acquiesce to the outraged, which only gives them more power for the next Internet hate bandwagon.
No, what’s different is that social media allows for decentralized outrage targeting. It can come organically or it can be manufactured by the advertisement-dependent media, autocratic states, PR firms, “social justice warriors”, or other bad actors. That creates the perception of widespread outrage even when its limited to a handful of twitter accounts. But when a few dozen people are so loud you can’t hear the near-silence of everybody else, the rational response is to stop the noise and acquiesce to the outraged, which only gives them more power for the next Internet hate bandwagon.
> I would argue that nothing has significantly changed about cultural norms
My parents told me not to get a tattoo because I'd never land a job and I'd die destitute.
Gay people can get married and I see shoutouts to nonbinary people on the regular.
We're seeing widespread acceptance of vegetarianism and veganism as a personal choice that isn't subject to ridicule.
You mentioned #MeToo, which is still sweeping through various industries.
Class and race consciousness seems to be changing as well.
Neuroatypical people are getting more support and recognition. (Still have plenty of ways to go here.)
I dunno, I'd say we've gone through a lot of changes since the 90s.
> “social justice warriors”, or other bad actors.
Caring about social justice doesn't make one a bad actor.
My parents told me not to get a tattoo because I'd never land a job and I'd die destitute.
Gay people can get married and I see shoutouts to nonbinary people on the regular.
We're seeing widespread acceptance of vegetarianism and veganism as a personal choice that isn't subject to ridicule.
You mentioned #MeToo, which is still sweeping through various industries.
Class and race consciousness seems to be changing as well.
Neuroatypical people are getting more support and recognition. (Still have plenty of ways to go here.)
I dunno, I'd say we've gone through a lot of changes since the 90s.
> “social justice warriors”, or other bad actors.
Caring about social justice doesn't make one a bad actor.
Perhaps I should have been more precise with my language. What I meant to say was that I don’t think much has changed about cultural norms regarding bandwagoning.
I put “social justice warriors” in quotation marks because there are bad actors within any well-meaning group who in their own efforts do far more damage to themselves and others than they do to help anybody.
I put “social justice warriors” in quotation marks because there are bad actors within any well-meaning group who in their own efforts do far more damage to themselves and others than they do to help anybody.
Does it swing purely due to the cyclic nature of what is fashionable? Or does it take catastrophic results to shock society into a pendulum swing the other way?
Could silencing make controversial opinions more enticing via the Streisand effect?
It's hard to measure, but it does often bring attention to them when we have these discussions. I do feel the left's online attitude is firing back more than it's helping them. More than anything it makes people who had no position to take a side, which benefits those that are banking on the controversies the most.
One of most surprising headlines I saw this week is that in NYC you can be fined $250,000 for calling someone an "illegal immigrant".
I can understand that such an accusation may be slanderous under civil law. But the criminal law seems to only apply to that specific phrase, not the accusation.
Does anyone understand how such a seemingly unconstitutional law could get passed ?
I can understand that such an accusation may be slanderous under civil law. But the criminal law seems to only apply to that specific phrase, not the accusation.
Does anyone understand how such a seemingly unconstitutional law could get passed ?
To clarify, because I wanted to know the details:
This is coming from the "NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Immigration Status and National Origin."
The relevant text is: "the use of certain language, including “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination." The law does not (in this context) explicitly include the phrase "illegal immigrant."
A news article about this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-illegal-alien-city-law...
The original document: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/...
ETA: "The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived “alienage and citizenship status,” and “national origin,” among other categories, by most employers, housing providers, and providers of public accommodations in New York City. The NYCHRL also prohibits discriminatory harassment and bias-based profiling by law enforcement."
This is coming from the "NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Immigration Status and National Origin."
The relevant text is: "the use of certain language, including “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination." The law does not (in this context) explicitly include the phrase "illegal immigrant."
A news article about this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-illegal-alien-city-law...
The original document: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/...
ETA: "The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived “alienage and citizenship status,” and “national origin,” among other categories, by most employers, housing providers, and providers of public accommodations in New York City. The NYCHRL also prohibits discriminatory harassment and bias-based profiling by law enforcement."
John C. Calhoun is alive and well in his beloved party. Nullification forever.
> Does anyone understand how such a seemingly unconstitutional law could get passed ?
Things get passed because politicians vote for them. They might or might not listen to legal advice about their constitutionality before voting.
It's possible there is something we don't know that makes the rule constitutional. Other possibilities are:
1. The councilors who voted for it don't care, their strategy is to try to get away with anything and let the courts uphold the constitution.
2. The councilors actively want the courts to strike it down to generate a talking point at the next election.
There are plenty of voters who will reward both strategies, and they are over-represented among the politically active people.
Things get passed because politicians vote for them. They might or might not listen to legal advice about their constitutionality before voting.
It's possible there is something we don't know that makes the rule constitutional. Other possibilities are:
1. The councilors who voted for it don't care, their strategy is to try to get away with anything and let the courts uphold the constitution.
2. The councilors actively want the courts to strike it down to generate a talking point at the next election.
There are plenty of voters who will reward both strategies, and they are over-represented among the politically active people.
I would recommend reading the article which classifies that if this speech is used to threaten, demean, or discriminate then the fine is imposed.
This is how most free speech laws work, they don't impede your free speech unless you are endangering others with it. Threatening someone or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are not protected.
This is how most free speech laws work, they don't impede your free speech unless you are endangering others with it. Threatening someone or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are not protected.
[deleted]
Leaving aside culture wars waged by individuals, I see institutional tightening on free speech all over America. I see it in big tech companies, where only a progressive monoculture exists with no psychological safety for other viewpoints. I see it in censorship applied by defacto digital public squares like YouTube. I see it in the left's rampant use of deplatforming to silence opposing views. Increasingly, I also see it in universities (see this incident at the University of Washington today https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-was...).
I don't think it matters greatly whether it is the government or others. Free speech is a fundamental good that must be protected. I hope a greater focus is brought on these other means via which it has come under attack.