4 ms·

It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as

It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.

KGIII 9y ago
That's why I do it. I hold what is now considered an extreme view on free speech. I don't even have anything politically incorrect to say, really. I just strongly believe in the freedom to express ideas. A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here. Credible threats, slander, and libel are already illegal - as are a few others, such as divulging classified information. Speech needs all the protection it can get and, unfortunately, that means defending speech I don't particularly care for and people who would legitimately harm me if given the chance. Speech we agree with doesn't need protection, nobody wants to silence it. However, that's subject to change based on the whims of society and the government. I guess I've become an extremist, even though I'm pretty sure I haven't changed. I just love free speech.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Yep, younger generations are being brain washed, unfortunately, to believe in an un-American authoritarian view on speech. I agree with you. If you dont believe in free speech for those you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I literally defend literal Nazis. The Nazis hate me but they actually seem slightly less hyperbolic than those who dislike that I defend their basic human rights. The White Nationalists tell me they'd kick me out of the country, which is funny because I'm mostly Native American. The others (I don't have a name for them) tell me that I don't even have a right to support their right to free expression. I'd rather be told that I'm hated then be told I have no right to speak. Really, I think we can pretty much all agree that the Internet is largely a basic human right. With that, so shouldn't other protections apply. I think it's probably going to take regulation to get beyond this. I'm kind of hoping it's sensible regulation but it seems destined to happen eventually.
    - honestoHeminway 9y ago
      The internet did the worst thing one can do to a government. It proofed for 15 long years, that it is not needed - and things can be solved without all the kings men.
- davidcbc 9y ago
  > A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. Do you have a link to this?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...
zaphirplane 9y ago
I appreciate your argument and the "when they came for me" quote. As an intellectual argument doesn't the government also exist to protect people, this is mostly about where the line is drawn between protecting society from some of its harmful members and protecting society from the government. Hard line to draw
- wallace_f 9y ago
  What I would say is that while gov has a role to protect people's physical safety, what else do you believe is a legitimate role in protecting people from? Is it government's responsibility to care for your emotions? Do you think gov should cover our ears from mean words? Burn books that say things that you disagree with? Who decides what is disagreeable? Me? You? Trump? Eric Schmidt? In a way, speech is already a very effective democratic institution. The more decentralized and the more participants, the more democratic. But if this voice is transferred from the people to the gov, the more power is handed from the people to the elites, and most likely the faster we will devolve into authoritarianism.
  - zaphirplane 9y ago
    There are cults, groups and generally evil people who gain memeber ship thru words - brain washing - those groups then cause physical harm, waiting for the harm to happen doesn't sound like protecting society While I appreciate your view I don't know where you live or who you are and I bet there is a group of people out there that hates you, and you would have a different view on freedom to publish the on google / Facebook when they target you
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      To your first paragraph: Take another issue, like marijuana or alcohol prohibition. I don't have to personally be into those to say that it's not a legitimate role of government to tell me whether I can use them. Also here, you can find that some will die every year because of them, and make the same argument you made: that government should jump ahead and not allow it. If they dont, then they aren't protecting society, so your argument goes. Unfortunately here it's clear that life is far from perfect, but the moral question to ask is how can we make the best of it for all people? Should we ban everything because a few die: cars, sugar--what about swimming pools? Back flips? You see, I don't think this argument you made logically leads us to a very good world. Government can't protect us from everything. At some point we have to rely on faith in humanity. Not to mention with every power handed over from the people is given into the hands of government's propensity for corruption... So while I don't approve of every group that will use free speech same as I dont use marijuana or have a swimming pool, but I don't think it's a legitimate role of government to regulate any of that. In other words, I think more people will suffer w/o free speech than w/ it, but no solution will be perfect. Ok, however your second paragrapah is really concerning me.

KGIII 9y ago

That's why I do it. I hold what is now considered an extreme view on free speech. I don't even have anything politically incorrect to say, really. I just strongly believe in the freedom to express ideas. A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here. Credible threats, slander, and libel are already illegal - as are a few others, such as divulging classified information. Speech needs all the protection it can get and, unfortunately, that means defending speech I don't particularly care for and people who would legitimately harm me if given the chance. Speech we agree with doesn't need protection, nobody wants to silence it. However, that's subject to change based on the whims of society and the government. I guess I've become an extremist, even though I'm pretty sure I haven't changed. I just love free speech.

wallace_f 9y ago
Yep, younger generations are being brain washed, unfortunately, to believe in an un-American authoritarian view on speech. I agree with you. If you dont believe in free speech for those you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I literally defend literal Nazis. The Nazis hate me but they actually seem slightly less hyperbolic than those who dislike that I defend their basic human rights. The White Nationalists tell me they'd kick me out of the country, which is funny because I'm mostly Native American. The others (I don't have a name for them) tell me that I don't even have a right to support their right to free expression. I'd rather be told that I'm hated then be told I have no right to speak. Really, I think we can pretty much all agree that the Internet is largely a basic human right. With that, so shouldn't other protections apply. I think it's probably going to take regulation to get beyond this. I'm kind of hoping it's sensible regulation but it seems destined to happen eventually.
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    The internet did the worst thing one can do to a government. It proofed for 15 long years, that it is not needed - and things can be solved without all the kings men.
davidcbc 9y ago
> A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. Do you have a link to this?
- KGIII 9y ago
  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

zaphirplane 9y ago

I appreciate your argument and the "when they came for me" quote. As an intellectual argument doesn't the government also exist to protect people, this is mostly about where the line is drawn between protecting society from some of its harmful members and protecting society from the government. Hard line to draw

wallace_f 9y ago
What I would say is that while gov has a role to protect people's physical safety, what else do you believe is a legitimate role in protecting people from? Is it government's responsibility to care for your emotions? Do you think gov should cover our ears from mean words? Burn books that say things that you disagree with? Who decides what is disagreeable? Me? You? Trump? Eric Schmidt? In a way, speech is already a very effective democratic institution. The more decentralized and the more participants, the more democratic. But if this voice is transferred from the people to the gov, the more power is handed from the people to the elites, and most likely the faster we will devolve into authoritarianism.
- zaphirplane 9y ago
  There are cults, groups and generally evil people who gain memeber ship thru words - brain washing - those groups then cause physical harm, waiting for the harm to happen doesn't sound like protecting society While I appreciate your view I don't know where you live or who you are and I bet there is a group of people out there that hates you, and you would have a different view on freedom to publish the on google / Facebook when they target you
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    To your first paragraph: Take another issue, like marijuana or alcohol prohibition. I don't have to personally be into those to say that it's not a legitimate role of government to tell me whether I can use them. Also here, you can find that some will die every year because of them, and make the same argument you made: that government should jump ahead and not allow it. If they dont, then they aren't protecting society, so your argument goes. Unfortunately here it's clear that life is far from perfect, but the moral question to ask is how can we make the best of it for all people? Should we ban everything because a few die: cars, sugar--what about swimming pools? Back flips? You see, I don't think this argument you made logically leads us to a very good world. Government can't protect us from everything. At some point we have to rely on faith in humanity. Not to mention with every power handed over from the people is given into the hands of government's propensity for corruption... So while I don't approve of every group that will use free speech same as I dont use marijuana or have a swimming pool, but I don't think it's a legitimate role of government to regulate any of that. In other words, I think more people will suffer w/o free speech than w/ it, but no solution will be perfect. Ok, however your second paragrapah is really concerning me.