For the left, a wake-up call on free speech

[icehorse]

So, can anybody check if I got the argument from the article correctly:

If you allow speech to be restricted for any reason at all, you open the flood gates for speech to be restricted for every reason. Because some leftists believe speech should not be used to harm individuals, this justifies governments cynically employing spurious arguments to shut down leftist speech.

Therefore, any restriction against speech that exists is bad. Speech should have no restrictions whatsoever, because any argument in favor restricting speech can be misused by cynical racists for their own ends.

Do I have this correct?

If yes, then why does this logic only apply to laws restricting speech, but no other type of legislation?

Shouldn't we argue against any kind of law, since they all can be cynically misused by unscrupulous politicians?

Well done! A strawman and a false dilemma at the same time!

 

[icehorse]

I was wondering what others thought about this.

Good article. The "woke", IMO, are frequently NOT helpful.

 

[Kooky]

If we, as citizens, are expected to govern ourselves in a democratic society, then a free, relatively unimpeded flow of objective information is required in order to adequately fulfill that purpose.

Free speech protections also apply to inaccurate or misleading media content, propaganda, and misinformation, do they not?
How does that bring you any closer to your alleged goal of a "free, relatively unimpeded flow of objective information"?

For that matter, how do constitutional protections of hate speech help achieve that same goal?

 

[Altfish]

For the left, a wake-up call on free speech (msn.com)

I thought this was an interesting article, outlining the problems and consequences of policies designed to restrict speech and protect people's feelings.





I've made similar warnings in the past. The main reason for protecting free speech and other human rights is self-interest, so that your rights are protected as much as the other guy's.



Anything that would give rise to "discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex" is prohibited in some states. The writer indicates that the language used is precisely the language that has already been used to restrict speech on college campuses. The writer is suggesting here that the left has no leg to stand on in criticizing such prohibitions, since the left has already set the precedent of supporting such rules in the past.








Of course, the right-wing has also had a long history of restricting speech, such as the Hays Code and laws against pornography or any form of "indecency." They also blacklisted anyone considered to have left-wing views. But then the left came back with restrictions of their own, so it seems to go back and forth.

Now, the right-wing is retaliating with their own restrictions on speech, using the same exact language that the left has used.

I think this also points up the idea that there doesn't appear to be any set of consistent principles either side is really following. If one embraces the principle that "any threat or action of physical, emotional, or verbal harm in any form" should be prohibited, then one should be willing and able to practice that consistently. If not, then it may not be a good principle to follow.

I was wondering what others thought about this.

Is it the left banning/restricting the teaching of critical race theory?

 

[Stevicus]

Last line of the article; "We need to let everyone speak their minds, no matter what feelings they provoke. Period. That's a lesson we all need to learn, over and over again, until we know it by heart."

Yes, although I read it differently, considering the context of the article and his use of the phrase "no matter what feelings they provoke." It appeared to me that he was just targeting the premises behind certain rules, but not all rules.

That is a reasonable question (assuming you're the kind of person who has political opponents ) but the answer is more complex since the similarity of various rulesets is very much a matter of opinion. The rapid promoters of any given position are going to see their own rules as reasonable, rational and vital while seeing their opponents rules as an extreme imposition on freedom (and vice-versa).

Rules are a necessity to any kind of structured society. The key point is to find a way to establish rules that are actually reasonable, balanced and fair, not just ones which favour any particular socio-political preference.

I think a lot of people have a kind of "love/hate" relationship with rules.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's a fairly slippery slope, to be sure. But I remain comfortable in whatever agency or private company denying a platform to Nationalist horse[REDACTED]. Because 1939 wasn't all that long ago, it seems.

 

[Revoltingest]

Old Revoltistanian saying....
Granting government the power to do something for you
is to also grant them the power to do something to you.
Be careful letting it expand its power.

 

[Kooky]

The American people grant their government the power to do violence on a global scale, as well as against any individuals it deems "criminals", "terrorists", or otherwise threats to the social order.

Yet curiously, the only major threat that certain folks ever seem to recognize as coming from this is when the government tells people not to disseminate hate speech, almost as if the massive potential for violence against protesters and political radicals was a desired effect, but the same potential unleashed against bigoted hatemongers was not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Therefore, granting the government the power to do violence on a national scale is perfectly fine, because when has that ever backfired spectacularly?

What do you think?

 

[Kooky]

Well done! A strawman and a false dilemma at the same time!

Is that going to be the extent of your contribution to this thread, or will you posit a coherent position of your own at some point?

 

[epronovost]

I'm just saying that we'd all be better off under a government which tends to err on the side of free speech.

How are you rationalizing this with the fact that every single country in the top 10 of the most democratic and free country on Earth have Hate Speech laws on the books and apply those laws more vigorously then in the US? Isn't that contradictory? If restriction on hate speech were a slippery slope toward authoritarianism why all the more democratic countries those with such laws? Why are the US slumping? It seems to me you are trying to dodge the paradox of tolerance or at least underestimating its weight.

 

[Revoltingest]

How are you rationalizing this with the fact that every single country in the top 10 of the most democratic and free country on Earth have Hate Speech laws on the books and apply those laws more vigorously then in the US? Isn't that contradictory? If restriction on hate speech were a slippery slope toward authoritarianism why all the more democratic countries those with such laws? Why are the US slumping? It seems to me you are trying to dodge the paradox of tolerance or at least underestimating its weight.

Freedom is a many faceted thing, with different people
weighing various aspects differently. It could very well
be that at least regarding speech, Ameristan has more
freedom...even if overall it has less.
I don't want more speech restriction just because some
other countries do.

 

[Father Heathen]

Outside of actual threats and harassment, I'm not fond of the idea that we should sacrifice liberty to assuage butthurt.
You combat bigotry and ignorance with education and discourse, not silence and censorship.

 

[Ponder This]

The Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled repeatedly that laws against hate speech violate freedom of speech. I know people don't like to hear that, but that is freedom of speech.

Laws restricting hate speech are not a new idea. The opening of a new medium of communication, the internet, has merely resulted in new forms of speech. And, of course, many people think that speech ought to be restricted (as they always have thought and always tried to do).

Some forms of speech can be restricted, such as obscenity, fraud, child pornography, incitement to imminent lawless action, violations of intellectual property, true threats, advertising, ...

but not things that are simply "offensive", which happens to include many things categorized as "hate speech".

 

[epronovost]

Freedom is a many faceted thing, with different people
weighing various aspects differently. It could very well
be that at least regarding speech, Ameristan has more
freedom...even if overall it has less.
I don't want more speech restriction just because some
other countries do.

Depends, freedom is indeed very faceted. If I use my freedom of speech to malign transgender people; transgender people find their freedom of speech impeded by my maligning of them. The problem with freedom is that you can use it to deny it to others. Freedom is power after all and not all power is wielded for the benefit of freedom as whole.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends, freedom is indeed very faceted. If I use my freedom of speech to malign transgender people; transgender people find their freedom of speech impeded by my maligning of them. The problem with freedom is that you can use it to deny it to others. Freedom is power after all and not all power is wielded for the benefit of freedom as whole.

If you're arguing that maligning others can restrict
their right to speech, you'll have to make that case.
Otherwise your reasoning might be used to censor
any criticism. Governments would love that ability.

 

[epronovost]

If you're arguing that maligning others can restrict
their right to speech, you'll have to make that case.

Do I really need to? The racism, homophobia and sexism of the last century has definitely demonstrated that it can impede the capacity of those groups to express their point of view, share their experience and have their achievements recognize. Hell, some were literally denied the right to their identity in public spaces. It's the basic principle of bullying, where slanderous words are used for the purpose of social alienation and hostile workplace environment.

Yes, my reasoning can be used to restrict the rights of everybody so is the following "people who commit crimes should be punished". Anything and everything could one day become a crime and thus anything and everything could be punished. That's a logical possibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do I really need to?

Yer darn toot'n, bub...if you want government to take
away some of our right to speech, you'd better have
a stellar & convincing argument.

The racism, homophobia and sexism of the last century has definitely demonstrated that it can impede the capacity of those groups to express their point of view, share their experience and have their achievements recognize. Hell, some were literally denied the right to their identity in public spaces. It's the basic principle of bullying, where slanderous words are used for the purpose of social alienation and hostile workplace environment.

That's just a series of personal claims.
Not an evidenced argument.
For a change to our Constitution that would
limit our rights, I'd expect much much more.

 

[epronovost]

That's just a series of personal claims.
Not an evidenced argument.

Are you asking me to prove that bullying and hostile workplace environment exist? That social alienation can be achieved through words? Do I also need to prove you have a mother at that? Stop sealioning. The existence of racism, sexism, homophobia and a plethora of other bigotry is a matter of fact and history, not a personal opinion. It's also a matter of fact that those ideals were transmitted from generation to generation via cultural expression (AKA speech) and enforced by policies (AKA political speech).

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you asking me to prove that bullying and hostile workplace environment exist?

That wasn't your claim.
Do you remember what it was?