8 ms·

First, this isn't just about government censorship. It might be legal to draw Muhammed cartoons in Western countries, but everyone's afraid to do it because of

First, this isn't just about government censorship. It might be legal to draw Muhammed cartoons in Western countries, but everyone's afraid to do it because of what some hothead might do in revenge. We have some groups deciding to impose censorship on the wider community by threat of violence, no-platforming, etc, with the same result as if the government had done it. If the outcome is the same (censorship and fear of free discussion) how is this not related to freedom of speech? And if these groups are powerful enough to over-ride the law and impose their will on everyone else, doesn't that make them somewhat government-like in themselves? Second, the fact single private corporations can make decisions with a large impact on what can be said "in public" (ie, these days, on the internet) is problematic in itself. There is no "public space" online, and our civil laws aren't adapted to that. But that's also the same old problem the socialists identified with "freedom of the press": it applies to those with a printing press, and nobody else.

gnaritas 10y ago
> First, this isn't just about government censorship. Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship, and that's all it means. Fear of drawing Muhammed because of violence from Muslims while an issue, has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech the constitutional right. You don't have a freedom to offend or a freedom from consequences of pissing off radicals. > And if these groups are powerful enough to over-ride the law and impose their will on everyone else, doesn't that make them somewhat government-like in themselves? No, it doesn't, because they're not overriding laws and their violence is punishable by the law.
- talmand 10y ago
  If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? If a group can threaten another into silence regardless of laws of the land with the state not involving itself, one could argue that the oppressive group has become the arm of an oppressive state.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    Are you suggesting that the government should use its military and para-military forces to actively defend freedom of speech? The above comment points out that the government has a responsibility to fight people who break other laws, e.g. Murder, vandalism, harassment, etc. It sounds like your suggesting that these are not enough, that the government should actively pursue those who have not yet committed a crime against someone's body or property, but instead at the point where they are actively threatening (by some definition of that) through speech. Which by this definition, they would be utilizing their freedom of speech to do... which I think your implying the government should actively suppress. This sounds like it could easily be abused to fight any criticism of any group.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Threatening violence is one of those other laws. It is like harassment, which you listed.
    - talmand 10y ago
      I didn't mention military and I think that's a bit overblown on your part. Think a bit lower on the hierarchy, such as police and federal agents. But you are damn right the government should actively defend free speech, especially when it's the First freaking Amendment of the Constitution; of which the United States government is based upon. If the state refuses to defend one part of the Constitution from oppressive forces then the whole thing is potentially irrelevant. History shows this is how governments fall to tyranny. I fail to see where I'm stating that the state should oppress one group's speech for the benefit of another. I said no such thing. So, here it is again: What if the state actively ignores one group's illegal activities (that have nothing to do with speech, such as harassment or violence), that are done solely for the purposes of oppressing another group's ability to exercise their First Amendment rights? At that point the state is complicit in the oppression and is becoming an oppressive state.
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        I must have misunderstood your initial point. I agree that the government (police is para-military) has the responsibility to prosecute everyone equally. If your point was that it could ignore prosecuting some in order to suppress freedom of speech, than I agree, that the government should in some way be required to prosecute all people fairly (though this is easier said than done I fear). I guess for me it's the "active" defense of the First Amendment that concerns me, because depending on what that means it could easily be actively abused in exactly the ways that we're discussing through inactivity. For this, I think other laws, assuming they're fairly applied, are sufficient and less open to interpretation.
- base698 10y ago
  The original writings on free speech very much included non government censorship. Where did everyone get that? It wasn't by reading On Liberty.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship No, "the right to free speech" means the right to be free of government censorship. "Freedom of speech" simply means freedom of speech, exactly what it says.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  Government is just one form of a society's self regulation. If free speech is a "right" is there a qualitative difference between society restricting it via one mechanism but not another? Does it matter that its your neighbors beating you to shut you up instead of the cops? If so, why?
- mhuffman 10y ago
  Too bad the threats from their religious leaders do not seem to be, right? This is like saying that nuclear weapons for individuals shouldn't be illegal because killing people is already illegal -- the punishment is too late! Stifling people's free speech under threats that a person knows someone will follow through with, is the same as censorship. Allowing that "threat" to hang in the air, is tacit acceptance of censorship by the government.
makomk 10y ago
The problem with this is that restrictions on "no-platforming, etc" are themselves restrictions on speech. Which makes the entire concept inconsistent and something that only provides freedom for the (usually right-wing) speech its proponent agrees with. For example, recently a student got so offended with the politics of a poem in his campus newsletter he went to the office of a professor involved with producing it, demanding to know who "approved" it and refusing to leave (as though it was the duty of the university to protect him from such views). If a left-wing student had done this, we'd have seen all the familiar complaints about "outrage culture" and the death of "free speech" on campus, demands that the university punish him, etc. However, he was a right-wing activist objecting to left-wing content, so in the eyes of the same groups like FIRE etc this makes him a hero of student journalism who must be protected. There's no actual principles there; "free speech" is just a weapon of the right against the left, something that means freedom of right-wing views and freedom from left-wing ones.

gnaritas 10y ago

> First, this isn't just about government censorship. Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship, and that's all it means. Fear of drawing Muhammed because of violence from Muslims while an issue, has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech the constitutional right. You don't have a freedom to offend or a freedom from consequences of pissing off radicals. > And if these groups are powerful enough to over-ride the law and impose their will on everyone else, doesn't that make them somewhat government-like in themselves? No, it doesn't, because they're not overriding laws and their violence is punishable by the law.

talmand 10y ago
If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? If a group can threaten another into silence regardless of laws of the land with the state not involving itself, one could argue that the oppressive group has become the arm of an oppressive state.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that the government should use its military and para-military forces to actively defend freedom of speech? The above comment points out that the government has a responsibility to fight people who break other laws, e.g. Murder, vandalism, harassment, etc. It sounds like your suggesting that these are not enough, that the government should actively pursue those who have not yet committed a crime against someone's body or property, but instead at the point where they are actively threatening (by some definition of that) through speech. Which by this definition, they would be utilizing their freedom of speech to do... which I think your implying the government should actively suppress. This sounds like it could easily be abused to fight any criticism of any group.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Threatening violence is one of those other laws. It is like harassment, which you listed.
  - talmand 10y ago
    I didn't mention military and I think that's a bit overblown on your part. Think a bit lower on the hierarchy, such as police and federal agents. But you are damn right the government should actively defend free speech, especially when it's the First freaking Amendment of the Constitution; of which the United States government is based upon. If the state refuses to defend one part of the Constitution from oppressive forces then the whole thing is potentially irrelevant. History shows this is how governments fall to tyranny. I fail to see where I'm stating that the state should oppress one group's speech for the benefit of another. I said no such thing. So, here it is again: What if the state actively ignores one group's illegal activities (that have nothing to do with speech, such as harassment or violence), that are done solely for the purposes of oppressing another group's ability to exercise their First Amendment rights? At that point the state is complicit in the oppression and is becoming an oppressive state.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      I must have misunderstood your initial point. I agree that the government (police is para-military) has the responsibility to prosecute everyone equally. If your point was that it could ignore prosecuting some in order to suppress freedom of speech, than I agree, that the government should in some way be required to prosecute all people fairly (though this is easier said than done I fear). I guess for me it's the "active" defense of the First Amendment that concerns me, because depending on what that means it could easily be actively abused in exactly the ways that we're discussing through inactivity. For this, I think other laws, assuming they're fairly applied, are sufficient and less open to interpretation.
base698 10y ago
The original writings on free speech very much included non government censorship. Where did everyone get that? It wasn't by reading On Liberty.
MustardTiger 10y ago
>Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship No, "the right to free speech" means the right to be free of government censorship. "Freedom of speech" simply means freedom of speech, exactly what it says.
Amezarak 10y ago
Government is just one form of a society's self regulation. If free speech is a "right" is there a qualitative difference between society restricting it via one mechanism but not another? Does it matter that its your neighbors beating you to shut you up instead of the cops? If so, why?
mhuffman 10y ago
Too bad the threats from their religious leaders do not seem to be, right? This is like saying that nuclear weapons for individuals shouldn't be illegal because killing people is already illegal -- the punishment is too late! Stifling people's free speech under threats that a person knows someone will follow through with, is the same as censorship. Allowing that "threat" to hang in the air, is tacit acceptance of censorship by the government.

makomk 10y ago

The problem with this is that restrictions on "no-platforming, etc" are themselves restrictions on speech. Which makes the entire concept inconsistent and something that only provides freedom for the (usually right-wing) speech its proponent agrees with. For example, recently a student got so offended with the politics of a poem in his campus newsletter he went to the office of a professor involved with producing it, demanding to know who "approved" it and refusing to leave (as though it was the duty of the university to protect him from such views). If a left-wing student had done this, we'd have seen all the familiar complaints about "outrage culture" and the death of "free speech" on campus, demands that the university punish him, etc. However, he was a right-wing activist objecting to left-wing content, so in the eyes of the same groups like FIRE etc this makes him a hero of student journalism who must be protected. There's no actual principles there; "free speech" is just a weapon of the right against the left, something that means freedom of right-wing views and freedom from left-wing ones.