3 ms·

"Extremists" like that communist agitator Martin Luther King and all those "extremist" satanic homosexuals spreading AIDS? Good thing we stopped them from speak

"Extremists" like that communist agitator Martin Luther King and all those "extremist" satanic homosexuals spreading AIDS? Good thing we stopped them from speaking, right? Go to Saudi Arabia, they support free speech, except for those extremists who claim Mohamed wasn't the true prophet of Allah. Back in the USSR they supported free speech, except for those extremists who undermined worker morale. Pretending you and your allies can quasi-objectively categorize "extremists" is exactly the sort of mass delusion we need free speech to prevent.

Rusky 9y ago
The particular speech in question matters here at some level, doesn't it? Society is messy and collaborative, and applying a first amendment-style rule to literally everyone on literally every subject is untenable. In a sense it's even paradoxical. You can't say that everyone must uphold free speech on every subject without restricting their own freedom in some way.
- pizza 9y ago
  The paradox being "either 'everyone must let others speak freely' or 'you are free to decide when others can't speak freely' but not both?" Why would this paradox arise in a just society? Specifically the second condition. My (Kantian) ethical justification for the first is "in any situation where I use the rule, I would want its use to be universally established", whereas in the second condition it is clearly false to say that every situation where I restrict someone else's speech coexists with my desire for everyone else to decide when another's speech should be restricted, since my desire to censor and my opponent's opposite desire would contradict that I am acting how I would if I wanted the rule to be universal. Isn't the only freedom you're restricting by upholding free speech, the freedom to arbitrarily restrict freedoms all for the sake of promoting big-picture freedom? I find it hard to see this as consistent. What kinds of scenarios do you see as too messy/exceptional/extraordinary where freedom of speech becomes a self-imposed restriction?
  - Rusky 9y ago
    "you are free to decide when others can't speak freely" is a bit reductionist considering we're talking about a platform providing the capability for others' speech. Other situations that introduce nuance are private spaces, individuals' social media feeds, etc. It's not about "freedom" to restrict others' speech- it's about freedom not to support it or to listen to it.
    - pizza 9y ago
      Fair enough, I see how providing the medium for another person's actions is different than putting yourself in a position of authority over them. That said, there is an argument to be made that a host should not worry that they are partly to blame for, or that their non-intervention suggests tacit approval of, a user's detestable messages - simply because the host just isn't accountable for the user's actions. The solution to not supporting it, imo, is to be explicit about the host's scope of permissions and banned content right up front, before problems occur, because then the responsibility for the user to not do so is recorded. [If the agreement clause is really vague and allows nearly anything, it doesn't change that the user can expect it to be used.] Freedom to not listen to speech is in my opinion just as valid as the freedom to speak; maybe I'd call it the freedom to silence :P [An extreme example of Kant is that, if a murderer asks, you should tell them where the person they say they are going to kill is, instead of lying. The reason goes: right and wrong having nothing to do with morality (universal law) so you can't justify lying to the murderer if you see them as a person who is an end in themselves- rather the lie is a way to pursue a right and wrong based in single situation hypotheticals (whether you should manipulate the murderer to save lives), which means it can't derive its value to you from being universally applicable, from not originating from a categorical truth. The reason although people are worth more than a means, you still can't mislead the murderer so as to protect a valuable life, is that the potential murderer, also an undeniable end in themselves, is the one upon whom the responsibility for the murder should be placed - you are not responsible whether or not the murderer tells the truth that they will kill or if they lie. They are still totally free to choose not to murder the person after you give their location away anyway. Do I think I would act this way? I really don't think so. Another way to resolve it is to keep quiet lol]
- briholt 9y ago
  No.

Rusky 9y ago

The particular speech in question matters here at some level, doesn't it? Society is messy and collaborative, and applying a first amendment-style rule to literally everyone on literally every subject is untenable. In a sense it's even paradoxical. You can't say that everyone must uphold free speech on every subject without restricting their own freedom in some way.

pizza 9y ago
The paradox being "either 'everyone must let others speak freely' or 'you are free to decide when others can't speak freely' but not both?" Why would this paradox arise in a just society? Specifically the second condition. My (Kantian) ethical justification for the first is "in any situation where I use the rule, I would want its use to be universally established", whereas in the second condition it is clearly false to say that every situation where I restrict someone else's speech coexists with my desire for everyone else to decide when another's speech should be restricted, since my desire to censor and my opponent's opposite desire would contradict that I am acting how I would if I wanted the rule to be universal. Isn't the only freedom you're restricting by upholding free speech, the freedom to arbitrarily restrict freedoms all for the sake of promoting big-picture freedom? I find it hard to see this as consistent. What kinds of scenarios do you see as too messy/exceptional/extraordinary where freedom of speech becomes a self-imposed restriction?
- Rusky 9y ago
  "you are free to decide when others can't speak freely" is a bit reductionist considering we're talking about a platform providing the capability for others' speech. Other situations that introduce nuance are private spaces, individuals' social media feeds, etc. It's not about "freedom" to restrict others' speech- it's about freedom not to support it or to listen to it.
  - pizza 9y ago
    Fair enough, I see how providing the medium for another person's actions is different than putting yourself in a position of authority over them. That said, there is an argument to be made that a host should not worry that they are partly to blame for, or that their non-intervention suggests tacit approval of, a user's detestable messages - simply because the host just isn't accountable for the user's actions. The solution to not supporting it, imo, is to be explicit about the host's scope of permissions and banned content right up front, before problems occur, because then the responsibility for the user to not do so is recorded. [If the agreement clause is really vague and allows nearly anything, it doesn't change that the user can expect it to be used.] Freedom to not listen to speech is in my opinion just as valid as the freedom to speak; maybe I'd call it the freedom to silence :P [An extreme example of Kant is that, if a murderer asks, you should tell them where the person they say they are going to kill is, instead of lying. The reason goes: right and wrong having nothing to do with morality (universal law) so you can't justify lying to the murderer if you see them as a person who is an end in themselves- rather the lie is a way to pursue a right and wrong based in single situation hypotheticals (whether you should manipulate the murderer to save lives), which means it can't derive its value to you from being universally applicable, from not originating from a categorical truth. The reason although people are worth more than a means, you still can't mislead the murderer so as to protect a valuable life, is that the potential murderer, also an undeniable end in themselves, is the one upon whom the responsibility for the murder should be placed - you are not responsible whether or not the murderer tells the truth that they will kill or if they lie. They are still totally free to choose not to murder the person after you give their location away anyway. Do I think I would act this way? I really don't think so. Another way to resolve it is to keep quiet lol]
briholt 9y ago
No.