9 ms·

Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

54 points by exolymph 9y ago

DonbunEf7 9y ago
Indeed, free society forms a fixpoint of ideas, where it protects itself from being eaten by The State by insisting that any person can stand up and speak about free society. It is unfortunate that it also shields so many reprehensible opinions, but as usual, if the best thing you can say about an idea is that it is allowed in a free society, then perhaps that idea isn't worth much.
colordrops 9y ago
This is spot on. Most people who are calling for censorship don't have an ideological backing behind their stance and just want to violently shut their opponents up, while somehow believing they are righteous.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." -- Walter in The Big Lebowski
  - kyleblarson 9y ago
    You're not wrong Walter you're just an asshole.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I really don't think so. I don't think persons of color not want to be constantly assailed with racism online fall into that category. Women not wanting to be assailed with death and rape threats on line don't fall into that category.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    It's fine for people to not want to read things online. What's not fine is giving them the power to prevent those things from being written.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      In the cases I listed above, I cannot agree. I think it is perfectly fine to prevent rape threats from being written. I don't believe things like that fall under free speech. And while we're on the subject of preventing speech, realize that, if you're of the mind that we should allow those things, you're not preventing speech from being silenced. You're just changing the speech that is silenced. Someone who is constantly bombarded with racism or violent threats online is less likely to contribute their voice to conversation.
      - gozur88 9y ago
        There's a big difference between "I stopped contributing because people said things that upset me" and "I got arrested for saying something." I don't accept the premise that people who are upset by what they read are somehow shut out of the conversation.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        Yet, they are. And as for the "I was arrested for saying something," I think that can be pretty disingenuous, given that "something" can range from "All (ethnic group) are a bunch of (ethnic slur)" to violent threats. I don't believe the first one should be an arrestable offense, but I don't believe that either of them have a place in polite society.
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    In the past I had an account whose handle people would often assume was a woman. I liked to discuss politics and so I'd disagree with people, and I ended up disagreeing with people on the right and the left. The only death and rape threats that account received were from the left.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Your anecdote is not data. I never mentioned anything about a political "side", and you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the claim that the right does not do that.
  - eradicatethots 9y ago
    It seems actually like both those groups fit perfectly in that category. Should they feel differently? Who am I to say (probably not).
sparkzilla 9y ago
Free speech is part of the natural right of individuals to live and think without being oppressed by society.
- UnpossibleJim 9y ago
  Without being oppressed by law or legislation, not by society. It seems like a crowbar of distinction, I know, but it's an important distinction. You can still be ostracized for your speech and chided, as certain ideas should be given what the society values, but you shouldn't be jailed or prevented from speaking on public grounds, given proper permits/clearances.
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    It's also important to recognize that government is not society. Government to my mind is a mafia. A group of thugs that enforces its will and buys good will with a little charity while sucking the life out of the country (eg: massive inflation, taxation, regulation to favor their allied businesses, perpetrating drug wars and wars in other countries despite society opposing them, etc.) If government represented society, we would not have a drug war, we would not be in so many wars, etc.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  But how far does that go? Speech can also be used to suppress others. When Leslie Jones was bombarded with hate speech and racism on Twitter by members of Gamergate and the alt-right, she ended up quitting Twitter. That would qualify as oppression to most people. Now if you want to say something about Twitter, then fine. Replace Twitter with the public park.
msky 9y ago
> The key question of censorship is: Who decides what to censor? This is the problem. Sure, like most people I don't want to listen to ____. But the cost of silencing them, is going to be opening the door to silence me. The old adage: "it's great while it works"
woodruffw 9y ago
I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society. Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully recognize both the inciter and the mob and assign blame commensurately. Most of us, I think, would not want to live in a society where inciting panic or violence is at least morally neutral. If that's the case and we think that the laws should reflect such a judgement, then it follows that open societies must (counterintuitively) place restrictions on free speech.[1] Geoff makes good points, and he uses good sources to advance those points. But we should not think that Paine or Mill would be comfortable with the absolutist rhetoric that they get applied popularly to today. [1]: Karl Popper called this the "Paradox of Tolerance."
- ggreer 9y ago
  You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.
  - blowski 9y ago
    Is it always clear when it’s one or the other? If I say “western society is decadent and as such should be overthrown” is that an idea or an incitement to violence?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ggreer 9y ago
      It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat or an incitement to violence. Here's an example of what counts as free speech in the US: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."[1] It has to be a true threat. Likewise, inciting a mob only applies to actual mobs on the verge of violence. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States#Watts_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
leftistcensor03 9y ago
the constitution is a construct of white supremacy. abolish now. impeach now. flag this post now. all republicans and conservatives are nazis. everyone who disagrees with me is hitler and must be silenced before people hear them, because I am the sole arbiter of virtue.
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  This comment deserves more upvotes, because even if you don't agree with it, it accurately distills the perspective of those who are aghast that liberals increasingly seem to be unable to tolerate the idea of a jewish dude who is married to a black dude being allowed to speak (and worse, calling him a Nazi. If a gay, "race traitor" jew is a Nazi then who isn't?) I'm a liberal, who years ago really worked to champion free speech. I think what's going on now is the rise of a puritan neo-liberalism. PS- the post I'm replying to is comprised of concepts or statements that I've actually seen people express.
  - leftistcensor04 9y ago
    Consider Ben Shapiro - one of the brightest political minds of this generation, and an orthodox jew. Regularly branded as a nazi white supremacist by leftist mobs. Hilarious.
    - wahern 9y ago
      Being Jewish, or adhering to Orthodox Judaism, doesn't prevent you from adopting or espousing fascist or racist ideologies. And smart people are often better than most at crafting self-serving rationalizations. It's inexcusable the way some people on the left throw around the term Nazi, just like it's inexcusable when conservatives use it. But surely you understand that with both liberal and conservative usage the epithet Nazi has a much broader (not to mention often incoherent) connotation in modern culture.
      - leftistcensor04 9y ago
        I accept your challenge. Produce one fascist or racist statement made by Ben Shapiro. The point I'm making is that "progressive philosophy" dictates that an argument is won almost entirely based on "victim" points. By imagining a concept "victims" and "injustices", progressive leftists believe they are able to completely control narratives, expression, and speech as we know it.
artsnail 9y ago
This also of course raises the question of what the rights of the audience are in terms of their choice to listen or not. This becomes especially complicated with situations like the internet (where the barriers to engaging in conversation with other people are lower), or on property which isn't a completely open public forum all the time. Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library, even though it's government property, where that interferes with the ability of other people to use it.
- eesmith 9y ago
  "Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library" These are "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%2c+and+Manner+Restrictions http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%... . These are pretty well understood. You also don't have the right to go through a neighborhood at 2am with a bullhorn talking about your political platform in the upcoming election. What's at issue is that most internet sites are privately held, and such things as "free speech", which is a prohibition on government interference, have no real meaning. Groups, including companies, also have the right of association, and that includes the right to kick people out. The government has some ability to restrict that right of association, as with the various civil rights protections regarding businesses. However, none of that analysis applies to, for example, one's ability to post videos to YouTube. In the US, the government can't even prohibit private clubs from discriminating on basis of race.
shkkmo 9y ago
When we "suppress speech", we aren't actually suppressing the utterance but rather limiting the audience. This may seem like a good way to limit the spread of an idea and it will definitely reduce the spread in the short term. However, people will always find a way to communicate (e.g. side channels and dog whistles develop). This means that eventually you've now only removed from the audience those who are the least susceptible to the idea and have the best tools for refuting it. At this point, the idea is actually better able to spread within it's audience because dissenting voices have been isolated. As you broaden the criteria for what is suppressed (used to be use of the N word, now includes mentioning any genetic component to differences in distributions of traits between genders), you end up driving more and more people into this isolated audience and encouraging the spread of very objectionable ideas to people who used to just have mildly objectionable ideas. The more we allow private companies with monopolistic or oligopolistic products to push these voices out of the mainstream the worse off we will be in the long term as these ideas become more entrenched, isolated and difficult to remove. The more we rely on shunning, ostracizing and public shaming as tools to battle objectionable ideas, the more we encourage the creation of communities that are fertile ground for those ideas to grow in. [edit: minor grammar fixes]
noobermin 9y ago
But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? The discussion around "Free Speech" is the concept, not the government's role in regulation of it or lack there of.
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  Are you saying that "hate speech" is a concept that is only adopted by the fringes? Doesn't seem to be that way to me. 20 years ago, it was the fringe. Now it seems like if it isn't mainstream, it is close. Certainly we see Canada and the UK passing laws eliminating free speech for political minorities.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    Can you give me a link to evidence of this? Like an op-ed in a major publication or something? My first google shows articles that affirm "hate speech" is protected speech in the US. I really can't speak for the UK or Canada. The US has free speech enshrined in the constitution's first amendment; and I'm not aware other countries have such constraints that are as absolute as the first amendment.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? Former senator Harry Reid called for the repeal of the First Amendment in 2014, in response to the Citizens United ruling which held that the First Amendment protects the right to show a film critical of a political candidate prior to an election. Whether or not one supports that action, I'd say that's certainly not on the fringes.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    Googled it and the only publications who discussed this were right wing publications. I think "repeal of the first ammendment" is hyperbole used mostly by those sets of authors. Politifact seems to say it was about campaign finance[0] [0] http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-overstates-effect-proposed-constitutional/ http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cr...
geofft 9y ago
> Imagine our society passes laws to ban the publishing of abhorrent and bigoted ideas. No longer are people allowed to express racism, sexism, homophobia, or antisemitism. So we ban Mein Kampf. Is this an actual proposal? Most things I have seen in the discourse that seem to be objected to on free speech grounds are e.g. proposals to prevent certain speakers from speaking at colleges, proposals to prevent certain groups from having marches, proposals for certain discussion websites to ban particularly toxic/abusive users, etc. This seems to me to be very different from banning Mein Kampf as a book. I think you can coherently believe in the above bans while also believing that Mein Kampf should be available on Project Gutenberg etc. for anyone to read and evaluate, for people to understand what is this scary book that people keep talking about, etc. To take the example of banning speakers at colleges - I don't think any one of the people for whom no-platforming has been proposed lacks a platform of their own. They have websites. They have books. Their ideas are out there. If their ideas are in fact coherent enough for "the opportunity of exchanging error for truth," that debate can already happen. If they aren't, the virtue-signaling approach of putting up "ideological minorities" in college lecture halls to say the exact same thing they've said 100 times before isn't going to help anyone reach truth.
eesmith 9y ago
"It’s commonly assumed that freedom of speech is about the right of the speaker to express their ideas" ... without government interference. However, it is fully within the rights of the audience to condone, chastise, avoid, and laugh at the speaker. To prohibit the audience from that reaction would be to suppress their free speech. Freedom of association also requires that a group be able to prevent speech in the context of a group assembly. "Who decides what to censor?" Who is calling for government censorship of which expression? This essay sounds like a completely different discussion on free speech than what I am used to hearing, and I don't understand the context. "If you ask, “Who should decide which ideas you may hear or read?”, people boggle." Most people don't seem to boggle about porn filters or automatic spam rejection. The books "Ulysses", "Lady Chatterley's Lover", and "Memoirs of Hecate County" were once banned in the US. While I don't agree with those bans, I bring it up to point out that people don't always boggle. "So we ban Mein Kampf." Who is proposing that we ban it? I understand that it's rhetorical, but it doesn't sound like a serious example of anything in the current discourse. As I understand it, the question is, should organizations like a public university have some ability to override a student group which has selected a contentious external speaker to speak, given that the event uses university subsidized facilities and security staff. That's hardly calling for a ban on Mein Kampf.
- eradicatethots 9y ago
  The point they made doesn’t just apply to government
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I know that's the argument, but it's not true. The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or, to go back to John Stuart Mill: > This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. That "liberty of expressing and publishing opinions" is the the freedom of speech. The "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others" is the freedom of assembly. The freedom of assembly - often seen as synonymous with the freedom of association - means that a group must be allowed to expel people from the group or prevent people from joining the group. A group must be allowed to control who speaks at a group's meeting or uses a group's resources. (This is not absolute, as you can see in civil rights laws prevent businesses from certain behaviors.) Without this freedom, a minority group can easily be overwhelmed by a majority who decides to use the heckler's veto. For all of the people who say that "free speech" is not restricted to government restrictions on speech, why do you want to weaken the right to assembly?
nonstop64 9y ago
These arguments presuppose that people value the truth. I've found, at least on Reddit, that most communities that have rampant censorship subscribe to indefensible ideas. For example, none of the science subreddit would consider banning someone who argues for Flat Earth, because scientists live for the opportunity to debate on the side of the truth. However, certain subs such as T_D and LSC allow no challenge of their ideas, because they don't merit correctness and know that a debate of their ideologies is a contest that they will lose. To paraphrase Dawkins, you cannot reason with people who don't value reason.

54 points by exolymph 9y ago

Indeed, free society forms a fixpoint of ideas, where it protects itself from being eaten by The State by insisting that any person can stand up and speak about free society. It is unfortunate that it also shields so many reprehensible opinions, but as usual, if the best thing you can say about an idea is that it is allowed in a free society, then perhaps that idea isn't worth much.

colordrops 9y ago

This is spot on. Most people who are calling for censorship don't have an ideological backing behind their stance and just want to violently shut their opponents up, while somehow believing they are righteous.

pmoriarty 9y ago
"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." -- Walter in The Big Lebowski
- kyleblarson 9y ago
  You're not wrong Walter you're just an asshole.
s73ver_ 9y ago
I really don't think so. I don't think persons of color not want to be constantly assailed with racism online fall into that category. Women not wanting to be assailed with death and rape threats on line don't fall into that category.
- gozur88 9y ago
  It's fine for people to not want to read things online. What's not fine is giving them the power to prevent those things from being written.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    In the cases I listed above, I cannot agree. I think it is perfectly fine to prevent rape threats from being written. I don't believe things like that fall under free speech. And while we're on the subject of preventing speech, realize that, if you're of the mind that we should allow those things, you're not preventing speech from being silenced. You're just changing the speech that is silenced. Someone who is constantly bombarded with racism or violent threats online is less likely to contribute their voice to conversation.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      There's a big difference between "I stopped contributing because people said things that upset me" and "I got arrested for saying something." I don't accept the premise that people who are upset by what they read are somehow shut out of the conversation.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        Yet, they are. And as for the "I was arrested for saying something," I think that can be pretty disingenuous, given that "something" can range from "All (ethnic group) are a bunch of (ethnic slur)" to violent threats. I don't believe the first one should be an arrestable offense, but I don't believe that either of them have a place in polite society.
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  In the past I had an account whose handle people would often assume was a woman. I liked to discuss politics and so I'd disagree with people, and I ended up disagreeing with people on the right and the left. The only death and rape threats that account received were from the left.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Your anecdote is not data. I never mentioned anything about a political "side", and you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the claim that the right does not do that.
- eradicatethots 9y ago
  It seems actually like both those groups fit perfectly in that category. Should they feel differently? Who am I to say (probably not).

sparkzilla 9y ago

Free speech is part of the natural right of individuals to live and think without being oppressed by society.

UnpossibleJim 9y ago
Without being oppressed by law or legislation, not by society. It seems like a crowbar of distinction, I know, but it's an important distinction. You can still be ostracized for your speech and chided, as certain ideas should be given what the society values, but you shouldn't be jailed or prevented from speaking on public grounds, given proper permits/clearances.
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  It's also important to recognize that government is not society. Government to my mind is a mafia. A group of thugs that enforces its will and buys good will with a little charity while sucking the life out of the country (eg: massive inflation, taxation, regulation to favor their allied businesses, perpetrating drug wars and wars in other countries despite society opposing them, etc.) If government represented society, we would not have a drug war, we would not be in so many wars, etc.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
s73ver_ 9y ago
But how far does that go? Speech can also be used to suppress others. When Leslie Jones was bombarded with hate speech and racism on Twitter by members of Gamergate and the alt-right, she ended up quitting Twitter. That would qualify as oppression to most people. Now if you want to say something about Twitter, then fine. Replace Twitter with the public park.

msky 9y ago

> The key question of censorship is: Who decides what to censor? This is the problem. Sure, like most people I don't want to listen to ____. But the cost of silencing them, is going to be opening the door to silence me. The old adage: "it's great while it works"

woodruffw 9y ago

I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society. Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully recognize both the inciter and the mob and assign blame commensurately. Most of us, I think, would not want to live in a society where inciting panic or violence is at least morally neutral. If that's the case and we think that the laws should reflect such a judgement, then it follows that open societies must (counterintuitively) place restrictions on free speech.[1] Geoff makes good points, and he uses good sources to advance those points. But we should not think that Paine or Mill would be comfortable with the absolutist rhetoric that they get applied popularly to today. [1]: Karl Popper called this the "Paradox of Tolerance."

ggreer 9y ago
You misunderstand me. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ideas, not threats or inciting mobs. You'll have a hard time finding any self-described free speech absolutist who thinks those should be permitted.
- blowski 9y ago
  Is it always clear when it’s one or the other? If I say “western society is decadent and as such should be overthrown” is that an idea or an incitement to violence?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ggreer 9y ago
    It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat or an incitement to violence. Here's an example of what counts as free speech in the US: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."[1] It has to be a true threat. Likewise, inciting a mob only applies to actual mobs on the verge of violence. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States#Watts_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

leftistcensor03 9y ago

the constitution is a construct of white supremacy. abolish now. impeach now. flag this post now. all republicans and conservatives are nazis. everyone who disagrees with me is hitler and must be silenced before people hear them, because I am the sole arbiter of virtue.

rothbardrand 9y ago
This comment deserves more upvotes, because even if you don't agree with it, it accurately distills the perspective of those who are aghast that liberals increasingly seem to be unable to tolerate the idea of a jewish dude who is married to a black dude being allowed to speak (and worse, calling him a Nazi. If a gay, "race traitor" jew is a Nazi then who isn't?) I'm a liberal, who years ago really worked to champion free speech. I think what's going on now is the rise of a puritan neo-liberalism. PS- the post I'm replying to is comprised of concepts or statements that I've actually seen people express.
- leftistcensor04 9y ago
  Consider Ben Shapiro - one of the brightest political minds of this generation, and an orthodox jew. Regularly branded as a nazi white supremacist by leftist mobs. Hilarious.
  - wahern 9y ago
    Being Jewish, or adhering to Orthodox Judaism, doesn't prevent you from adopting or espousing fascist or racist ideologies. And smart people are often better than most at crafting self-serving rationalizations. It's inexcusable the way some people on the left throw around the term Nazi, just like it's inexcusable when conservatives use it. But surely you understand that with both liberal and conservative usage the epithet Nazi has a much broader (not to mention often incoherent) connotation in modern culture.
    - leftistcensor04 9y ago
      I accept your challenge. Produce one fascist or racist statement made by Ben Shapiro. The point I'm making is that "progressive philosophy" dictates that an argument is won almost entirely based on "victim" points. By imagining a concept "victims" and "injustices", progressive leftists believe they are able to completely control narratives, expression, and speech as we know it.

artsnail 9y ago

This also of course raises the question of what the rights of the audience are in terms of their choice to listen or not. This becomes especially complicated with situations like the internet (where the barriers to engaging in conversation with other people are lower), or on property which isn't a completely open public forum all the time. Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library, even though it's government property, where that interferes with the ability of other people to use it.

eesmith 9y ago
"Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library" These are "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%2c+and+Manner+Restrictions http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%... . These are pretty well understood. You also don't have the right to go through a neighborhood at 2am with a bullhorn talking about your political platform in the upcoming election. What's at issue is that most internet sites are privately held, and such things as "free speech", which is a prohibition on government interference, have no real meaning. Groups, including companies, also have the right of association, and that includes the right to kick people out. The government has some ability to restrict that right of association, as with the various civil rights protections regarding businesses. However, none of that analysis applies to, for example, one's ability to post videos to YouTube. In the US, the government can't even prohibit private clubs from discriminating on basis of race.

shkkmo 9y ago

When we "suppress speech", we aren't actually suppressing the utterance but rather limiting the audience. This may seem like a good way to limit the spread of an idea and it will definitely reduce the spread in the short term. However, people will always find a way to communicate (e.g. side channels and dog whistles develop). This means that eventually you've now only removed from the audience those who are the least susceptible to the idea and have the best tools for refuting it. At this point, the idea is actually better able to spread within it's audience because dissenting voices have been isolated. As you broaden the criteria for what is suppressed (used to be use of the N word, now includes mentioning any genetic component to differences in distributions of traits between genders), you end up driving more and more people into this isolated audience and encouraging the spread of very objectionable ideas to people who used to just have mildly objectionable ideas. The more we allow private companies with monopolistic or oligopolistic products to push these voices out of the mainstream the worse off we will be in the long term as these ideas become more entrenched, isolated and difficult to remove. The more we rely on shunning, ostracizing and public shaming as tools to battle objectionable ideas, the more we encourage the creation of communities that are fertile ground for those ideas to grow in. [edit: minor grammar fixes]

noobermin 9y ago

But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? The discussion around "Free Speech" is the concept, not the government's role in regulation of it or lack there of.

rothbardrand 9y ago
Are you saying that "hate speech" is a concept that is only adopted by the fringes? Doesn't seem to be that way to me. 20 years ago, it was the fringe. Now it seems like if it isn't mainstream, it is close. Certainly we see Canada and the UK passing laws eliminating free speech for political minorities.
- noobermin 9y ago
  Can you give me a link to evidence of this? Like an op-ed in a major publication or something? My first google shows articles that affirm "hate speech" is protected speech in the US. I really can't speak for the UK or Canada. The US has free speech enshrined in the constitution's first amendment; and I'm not aware other countries have such constraints that are as absolute as the first amendment.
zeveb 9y ago
> But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? Former senator Harry Reid called for the repeal of the First Amendment in 2014, in response to the Citizens United ruling which held that the First Amendment protects the right to show a film critical of a political candidate prior to an election. Whether or not one supports that action, I'd say that's certainly not on the fringes.
- noobermin 9y ago
  Googled it and the only publications who discussed this were right wing publications. I think "repeal of the first ammendment" is hyperbole used mostly by those sets of authors. Politifact seems to say it was about campaign finance[0] [0] http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-overstates-effect-proposed-constitutional/ http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cr...

geofft 9y ago

> Imagine our society passes laws to ban the publishing of abhorrent and bigoted ideas. No longer are people allowed to express racism, sexism, homophobia, or antisemitism. So we ban Mein Kampf. Is this an actual proposal? Most things I have seen in the discourse that seem to be objected to on free speech grounds are e.g. proposals to prevent certain speakers from speaking at colleges, proposals to prevent certain groups from having marches, proposals for certain discussion websites to ban particularly toxic/abusive users, etc. This seems to me to be very different from banning Mein Kampf as a book. I think you can coherently believe in the above bans while also believing that Mein Kampf should be available on Project Gutenberg etc. for anyone to read and evaluate, for people to understand what is this scary book that people keep talking about, etc. To take the example of banning speakers at colleges - I don't think any one of the people for whom no-platforming has been proposed lacks a platform of their own. They have websites. They have books. Their ideas are out there. If their ideas are in fact coherent enough for "the opportunity of exchanging error for truth," that debate can already happen. If they aren't, the virtue-signaling approach of putting up "ideological minorities" in college lecture halls to say the exact same thing they've said 100 times before isn't going to help anyone reach truth.

eesmith 9y ago

"It’s commonly assumed that freedom of speech is about the right of the speaker to express their ideas" ... without government interference. However, it is fully within the rights of the audience to condone, chastise, avoid, and laugh at the speaker. To prohibit the audience from that reaction would be to suppress their free speech. Freedom of association also requires that a group be able to prevent speech in the context of a group assembly. "Who decides what to censor?" Who is calling for government censorship of which expression? This essay sounds like a completely different discussion on free speech than what I am used to hearing, and I don't understand the context. "If you ask, “Who should decide which ideas you may hear or read?”, people boggle." Most people don't seem to boggle about porn filters or automatic spam rejection. The books "Ulysses", "Lady Chatterley's Lover", and "Memoirs of Hecate County" were once banned in the US. While I don't agree with those bans, I bring it up to point out that people don't always boggle. "So we ban Mein Kampf." Who is proposing that we ban it? I understand that it's rhetorical, but it doesn't sound like a serious example of anything in the current discourse. As I understand it, the question is, should organizations like a public university have some ability to override a student group which has selected a contentious external speaker to speak, given that the event uses university subsidized facilities and security staff. That's hardly calling for a ban on Mein Kampf.

eradicatethots 9y ago
The point they made doesn’t just apply to government
- eesmith 9y ago
  I know that's the argument, but it's not true. The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or, to go back to John Stuart Mill: > This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. That "liberty of expressing and publishing opinions" is the the freedom of speech. The "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others" is the freedom of assembly. The freedom of assembly - often seen as synonymous with the freedom of association - means that a group must be allowed to expel people from the group or prevent people from joining the group. A group must be allowed to control who speaks at a group's meeting or uses a group's resources. (This is not absolute, as you can see in civil rights laws prevent businesses from certain behaviors.) Without this freedom, a minority group can easily be overwhelmed by a majority who decides to use the heckler's veto. For all of the people who say that "free speech" is not restricted to government restrictions on speech, why do you want to weaken the right to assembly?

nonstop64 9y ago

These arguments presuppose that people value the truth. I've found, at least on Reddit, that most communities that have rampant censorship subscribe to indefensible ideas. For example, none of the science subreddit would consider banning someone who argues for Flat Earth, because scientists live for the opportunity to debate on the side of the truth. However, certain subs such as T_D and LSC allow no challenge of their ideas, because they don't merit correctness and know that a debate of their ideologies is a contest that they will lose. To paraphrase Dawkins, you cannot reason with people who don't value reason.