5 ms·

I wonder why you got voted down. I'd rather see a counter-argument to this than a greying of it. Of course, the burden of justifying cutting out speech falls

I wonder why you got voted down. I'd rather see a counter-argument to this than a greying of it. Of course, the burden of justifying cutting out speech falls on those with the power and ability to do it. Today we all agree that white supremacy is evil and so on. But in the 1950s half of America didn't mind that the other half had fingers pointing at them that they were communists. Jobs were lost, reputations sullied, jailtime given. It felt really righteous at the time, because, it was said, the communists were traitors and even potentially spies. A police state was established, perhaps not as severe as that of Soviet Russia or East Germany, but a surveillance state nonetheless. During World War I we passed the Sedition Act, which made it a jailable, criminal offense to oppose World War I. Go ahead, let's pile it on the white supremacists. But what happens when the same forces come for you? The same precedent: to protect the public, your views will have to go underground. I speak as someone who is for all intents and purposes anti-fascist. However, I also speak as someone who recognizes that technology can make a far more repressive dystopia of limited ideas than Fascism of the 1930s was able to achieve. I wish people had a better reading of history before they beat their chests with this shut down of hate speech.

tepe1 9y ago
It's because everybody knows that this has nothing to do with free speech. People like to be pretend to be concerned about free speech up until a very specific point. Everybody draws the line somewhere different. (And the Constitution draws the line at a very clear and special place.) Let's say two people are in a chat room, Alice and Bob. Bob has decided that Western civilization is collapsing and so to do his part to defend it he spends several hours a day constantly spouting hatred against women and minorities. Alice doesn't agree and, quickly realizing that Bob can't be reasoned with, she leaves the chatroom. Hasn't Alice's "free speech" been violated? And isn't this exactly the plan of the alt-right? To create an environment of such extreme fear and hate that eventually everybody shuts up but them? It sure worked for their heroes the Nazis. And for some reason I don't think all these rallies are just a way to get more Vitamin D. And see, this is exactly the point where all of Bob's (male) defenders will rush in and declare that Alice doesn't have the right to feel safe, that she needs to toughen up and that, at the end of the day, fuck her feelings because Bob's free speech is sacred even if that means her speech goes away. This is what the brave defenders of free speech really want to accomplish: an environment where they can say the most vile things possible without consequence such that everybody else shuts up. And here's the thing for somebody claiming to have read history: the founders of the American republic knew this very well. This is why they weren't concerned about "free speech" as the bad faith position described above, they were actually much more concerned with freedom of the press and this is what all of them spent their time writing letters about. Anyways I could go on but let's be clear: we all know what the heroic defenders of free speech are really trying to accomplish. The "free speech" is just another bad faith distraction. Once that doesn't work they'll go back to blaming everything on the Jews.
- mancerayder 9y ago
  You didn't reply to the item you used the Reply button on, and went on a tangent, but I'll continue anyway. First of all there's no legal backing, and no philosophical backing to your claims below or your analogy. It all sounds like political rhetoric with a few weasel words thrown in ("everybody knows"?). But let's move forward: It's because everybody knows that this has nothing to do with free speech. I believe this is called the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. It's also a tautology, "everybody knows" plus <insert my premise here>. If everybody knew that, we wouldn't be here. Let's say two people are in a chat room, Alice and Bob. Bob has decided that Western civilization is collapsing and so to do his part to defend it he spends several hours a day constantly spouting hatred against women and minorities. Alice doesn't agree and, quickly realizing that Bob can't be reasoned with, she leaves the chatroom. Hasn't Alice's "free speech" been violated? No, Alice's free speech hasn't been violated, because, "free speech" isn't the freedom to "not hear" something. And a chat room isn't a strong analogy to a public square, but let's continue: Alice left the chat room, so I don't see what the problem is. You can argue that she was harassed, which is not covered by free speech, but a chat room with a political discussion going on (like this one) where parties are all willingly partaking would be difficult to constitute harassment. Additionally, Bob has every right to spout hatred against women and minorities, it's covered speech. In the United States -we are discussing the U.S. here, right?- at least. What's not covered is an imminent threat to women and minorities (Brandenburg v. Ohio). I'll elaborate below. And isn't this exactly the plan of the alt-right? To create an environment of such extreme fear and hate that eventually everybody shuts up but them? It sure worked for their heroes the Nazis. And for some reason I don't think all these rallies are just a way to get more Vitamin D. Tepe, this is a discussion of philosophy, it's a question of what laws we should and shouldn't have as well as how to apply the current laws and circumstances to the Constitution, so I say, what the "plan" of the alt-right here is has nothing to do with questions of fairness of permitted and non-permitted political speech. If I want to clamp down on your ability to express your unpopular opinion, I have to try harder than to suggest what your hidden or not-hidden intent is when you are stating it. And see, this is exactly the point where all of Bob's (male) defenders will rush in and declare that Alice doesn't have the right to feel safe, that she needs to toughen up and that, at the end of the day, fuck her feelings because Bob's free speech is sacred even if that means her speech goes away. It's not "fuck her feelings", it's very specifically: _If we clamp down on unpopular opinions in 2017 that I happen to dislike, what happens in 2027 when they clamp down on other unpopular opinions that I might have_? And _who is the arbiter of what is speech that causes people to feel safe versus speech that doesn't_? What happens when the shoe drops off the other foot, and political opponents now switch the definitions of safety and so forth? And no, Alice in your example has no "right" to feel safe. What does that even mean? How do we quantify feelings? Don't we all have varying sensitivities? I could go on. But legally, no, no such right. This is what the brave defenders of free speech really want to accomplish: an environment where they can say the most vile things possible without consequence such that everybody else shuts up. That sounds like many people's desired accomplishments, to get their political opponents to shut up, including yourself apparently; but this is outside the scope of a discussion about freedom of speech; something is either permitted speech or it isn't, period, there's no "what they really want here" arguments permitted (in a legal or philosophical context anyway). And here's the thing for somebody claiming to have read history: the founders of the American republic knew this very well. This is why they weren't concerned about "free speech" as the bad faith position described above, they were actually much more concerned with freedom of the press and this is what all of them spent their time writing letters about. Anyways I could go on but let's be clear: we all know what the heroic defenders of free speech are really trying to accomplish. The "free speech" is just another bad faith distraction. Once that doesn't work they'll go back to blaming everything on the Jews. No way. First of all, Founders Intent is a debate topic and it's been debated by the Supreme Court for two centuries. Your "protecting journalists" idea probably stems from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan ? Where malice has to be established? If not that, then where is your source? To sum up this entire discussion, Brandenburg v. Ohio establishes that speech is protected unless there's an imminent thread being made. End of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

tepe1 9y ago

It's because everybody knows that this has nothing to do with free speech. People like to be pretend to be concerned about free speech up until a very specific point. Everybody draws the line somewhere different. (And the Constitution draws the line at a very clear and special place.) Let's say two people are in a chat room, Alice and Bob. Bob has decided that Western civilization is collapsing and so to do his part to defend it he spends several hours a day constantly spouting hatred against women and minorities. Alice doesn't agree and, quickly realizing that Bob can't be reasoned with, she leaves the chatroom. Hasn't Alice's "free speech" been violated? And isn't this exactly the plan of the alt-right? To create an environment of such extreme fear and hate that eventually everybody shuts up but them? It sure worked for their heroes the Nazis. And for some reason I don't think all these rallies are just a way to get more Vitamin D. And see, this is exactly the point where all of Bob's (male) defenders will rush in and declare that Alice doesn't have the right to feel safe, that she needs to toughen up and that, at the end of the day, fuck her feelings because Bob's free speech is sacred even if that means her speech goes away. This is what the brave defenders of free speech really want to accomplish: an environment where they can say the most vile things possible without consequence such that everybody else shuts up. And here's the thing for somebody claiming to have read history: the founders of the American republic knew this very well. This is why they weren't concerned about "free speech" as the bad faith position described above, they were actually much more concerned with freedom of the press and this is what all of them spent their time writing letters about. Anyways I could go on but let's be clear: we all know what the heroic defenders of free speech are really trying to accomplish. The "free speech" is just another bad faith distraction. Once that doesn't work they'll go back to blaming everything on the Jews.

mancerayder 9y ago
You didn't reply to the item you used the Reply button on, and went on a tangent, but I'll continue anyway. First of all there's no legal backing, and no philosophical backing to your claims below or your analogy. It all sounds like political rhetoric with a few weasel words thrown in ("everybody knows"?). But let's move forward: It's because everybody knows that this has nothing to do with free speech. I believe this is called the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. It's also a tautology, "everybody knows" plus <insert my premise here>. If everybody knew that, we wouldn't be here. Let's say two people are in a chat room, Alice and Bob. Bob has decided that Western civilization is collapsing and so to do his part to defend it he spends several hours a day constantly spouting hatred against women and minorities. Alice doesn't agree and, quickly realizing that Bob can't be reasoned with, she leaves the chatroom. Hasn't Alice's "free speech" been violated? No, Alice's free speech hasn't been violated, because, "free speech" isn't the freedom to "not hear" something. And a chat room isn't a strong analogy to a public square, but let's continue: Alice left the chat room, so I don't see what the problem is. You can argue that she was harassed, which is not covered by free speech, but a chat room with a political discussion going on (like this one) where parties are all willingly partaking would be difficult to constitute harassment. Additionally, Bob has every right to spout hatred against women and minorities, it's covered speech. In the United States -we are discussing the U.S. here, right?- at least. What's not covered is an imminent threat to women and minorities (Brandenburg v. Ohio). I'll elaborate below. And isn't this exactly the plan of the alt-right? To create an environment of such extreme fear and hate that eventually everybody shuts up but them? It sure worked for their heroes the Nazis. And for some reason I don't think all these rallies are just a way to get more Vitamin D. Tepe, this is a discussion of philosophy, it's a question of what laws we should and shouldn't have as well as how to apply the current laws and circumstances to the Constitution, so I say, what the "plan" of the alt-right here is has nothing to do with questions of fairness of permitted and non-permitted political speech. If I want to clamp down on your ability to express your unpopular opinion, I have to try harder than to suggest what your hidden or not-hidden intent is when you are stating it. And see, this is exactly the point where all of Bob's (male) defenders will rush in and declare that Alice doesn't have the right to feel safe, that she needs to toughen up and that, at the end of the day, fuck her feelings because Bob's free speech is sacred even if that means her speech goes away. It's not "fuck her feelings", it's very specifically: _If we clamp down on unpopular opinions in 2017 that I happen to dislike, what happens in 2027 when they clamp down on other unpopular opinions that I might have_? And _who is the arbiter of what is speech that causes people to feel safe versus speech that doesn't_? What happens when the shoe drops off the other foot, and political opponents now switch the definitions of safety and so forth? And no, Alice in your example has no "right" to feel safe. What does that even mean? How do we quantify feelings? Don't we all have varying sensitivities? I could go on. But legally, no, no such right. This is what the brave defenders of free speech really want to accomplish: an environment where they can say the most vile things possible without consequence such that everybody else shuts up. That sounds like many people's desired accomplishments, to get their political opponents to shut up, including yourself apparently; but this is outside the scope of a discussion about freedom of speech; something is either permitted speech or it isn't, period, there's no "what they really want here" arguments permitted (in a legal or philosophical context anyway). And here's the thing for somebody claiming to have read history: the founders of the American republic knew this very well. This is why they weren't concerned about "free speech" as the bad faith position described above, they were actually much more concerned with freedom of the press and this is what all of them spent their time writing letters about. Anyways I could go on but let's be clear: we all know what the heroic defenders of free speech are really trying to accomplish. The "free speech" is just another bad faith distraction. Once that doesn't work they'll go back to blaming everything on the Jews. No way. First of all, Founders Intent is a debate topic and it's been debated by the Supreme Court for two centuries. Your "protecting journalists" idea probably stems from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan ? Where malice has to be established? If not that, then where is your source? To sum up this entire discussion, Brandenburg v. Ohio establishes that speech is protected unless there's an imminent thread being made. End of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio