3 ms·

Your assumption that this is only a problem on the left is completely baseless. The right likes to use the freedom of speech argument when they feel it works ag

Your assumption that this is only a problem on the left is completely baseless. The right likes to use the freedom of speech argument when they feel it works against them, but they also support scare tactics to suppress the speech (and votes) of minority groups often with the support or tacit acceptance of the government. It doesn't appear that the right even understands freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean that private organizations cannot censor you, it means that the government cannot censor you. Further, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to espouse hateful views, advocate physical violence (as you said), or cause false panic (whether you yell fire in an airport or yell conspiracy theories on the radio). If you believe that we should have open platforms on the Internet free from the censorship of Internet giants, then that is a different issue than freedom of speech. It's not that the left dislikes freedom of speech, it's that the right has twisted the meaning and use of freedom of speech to promote hate, conspiracy, and fear. I recommend you check out the Paradox of Tolerance, and idea put forth by philosopher Karl Popper.

iamdave 8y ago
It's not that the left dislikes freedom of speech, it's that the right has twisted the meaning and use of freedom of speech to promote hate, conspiracy, and fear. Seems to me that in the US there's an incredible unwillingness to look this particular horse in the mouth because everytime I see this debate online it's always "it's not us, it's THEM, they're the ones twisting words and ruining things, I'm not the boogeyman, it's them". Maybe not everytime but with enough frequency that it does become curious. But maybe that's just politics applied by humans equipped with human nature.
throwawaysea 8y ago
I don't think it is a problem only on the left. However, I've seen it more consistently on the left in recent times in the US. That's the only reason I mentioned it. I'm happy to hear and learn about counter examples too though. I do not agree with the definition of 'freedom of speech' you are using, and I don't think most would. Why would it be defined only in terms of the government? It is a general concept that is useful at all times, since it is about the open exchange of ideas. An open exchange of ideas is useful in governance, at work, among friends, etc. And yes, it is useful when discussing private organizations, particularly when there they harbor immense control and face little competition to create choice (as is the case with some platforms like Twitter or with payment processors). And as I mentioned elsewhere, Karl Popper was very clear about preferring not to suppress speech but to use rational arguments against differing opinions. In fact, using freedom of speech to suppress freedom of speech was the main problem he was talking about in the context of the paradox.
- iamdave 8y ago
  Why would it be defined only in terms of the government? "Freedom of speech only applies to the government" exists as an argument that is technically true if one were to go to court over the matter, so it is often used as a philosophical escape hatch to avoid having the tougher conversation on the larger implications of what 'freedom of speech' practically means, why the framers of the Constitution bothered with it in the first place-I would wager because having that discussion would reveal some ugly truths about someone who responds to a discussion like this by saying "freedom of speech only applies to the government" and what their true goals and intentions are in the face of unpleasant or disturbing information and opinions. The irony of such philosophical laziness isn't lost on me, but surely no one would say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are only ideals that can be granted by the government-yet there they are, in one of America's operating manuals. Clear as day. The argument falls apart at the surface, and if I'm being honest, sometimes I wonder if the people who like to deploy that tactic know this. American political discussion, in observation, is full of carefully picked cherries it seems like.

iamdave 8y ago

It's not that the left dislikes freedom of speech, it's that the right has twisted the meaning and use of freedom of speech to promote hate, conspiracy, and fear. Seems to me that in the US there's an incredible unwillingness to look this particular horse in the mouth because everytime I see this debate online it's always "it's not us, it's THEM, they're the ones twisting words and ruining things, I'm not the boogeyman, it's them". Maybe not everytime but with enough frequency that it does become curious. But maybe that's just politics applied by humans equipped with human nature.

throwawaysea 8y ago

I don't think it is a problem only on the left. However, I've seen it more consistently on the left in recent times in the US. That's the only reason I mentioned it. I'm happy to hear and learn about counter examples too though. I do not agree with the definition of 'freedom of speech' you are using, and I don't think most would. Why would it be defined only in terms of the government? It is a general concept that is useful at all times, since it is about the open exchange of ideas. An open exchange of ideas is useful in governance, at work, among friends, etc. And yes, it is useful when discussing private organizations, particularly when there they harbor immense control and face little competition to create choice (as is the case with some platforms like Twitter or with payment processors). And as I mentioned elsewhere, Karl Popper was very clear about preferring not to suppress speech but to use rational arguments against differing opinions. In fact, using freedom of speech to suppress freedom of speech was the main problem he was talking about in the context of the paradox.

iamdave 8y ago
Why would it be defined only in terms of the government? "Freedom of speech only applies to the government" exists as an argument that is technically true if one were to go to court over the matter, so it is often used as a philosophical escape hatch to avoid having the tougher conversation on the larger implications of what 'freedom of speech' practically means, why the framers of the Constitution bothered with it in the first place-I would wager because having that discussion would reveal some ugly truths about someone who responds to a discussion like this by saying "freedom of speech only applies to the government" and what their true goals and intentions are in the face of unpleasant or disturbing information and opinions. The irony of such philosophical laziness isn't lost on me, but surely no one would say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are only ideals that can be granted by the government-yet there they are, in one of America's operating manuals. Clear as day. The argument falls apart at the surface, and if I'm being honest, sometimes I wonder if the people who like to deploy that tactic know this. American political discussion, in observation, is full of carefully picked cherries it seems like.