8 ms·

As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides. There are behaviors that mos

As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides. There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection. There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor or otherwise oppress others. Generally people feel like they believe the latter part is the most important part...until something occurs in the former part. As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted. That used to be my answer. But I've come around to believing that if society doesn't apply a means of guidance/restriction/social repercussions the void will be filled with emergent results (i.e. ugliness). Abused rules are abusive, but a lack of a set of rules doesn't lead to peace, it leads to warlords and those least willing to restrain their own actions in the name of empathy gaining the most power. I don't have the right answers, but I'm confident that walking away from the questions is not the right answer.

grawprog 7y ago
>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It doesn't mean you can't shun the crap out of people saying dumb shit though.
- lliamander 7y ago
  The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech from government regulation, but that does not mean it is free speech. Free speech as a concept absolutely does mean an absence of consequences for, or at least a relative tolerance of, speech that people in society may generally disagree with. It stems from the belief that the truth can sometimes be unpopular, and that in order for us to benefit from the truth we must give people some latitude to be unpopular. The 1st Amendment does not enforce free speech in the social sphere merely because that is not the purview of the Constitution.
  - thingification 7y ago
    I'm not sure I'd have put this quite as emphatically as you, but there's a very important point here about the principle of free speech as compared with government suppression of speech. While nodding towards quite real problems involving, let's say for example vaccines, I don't think any of that troubles the principle of free speech in the slightest. Practically applying it is difficult and as error-prone as is anything else, but the principle is enlightening in that task. There does exist a principle of free speech that is not the same thing as the various legal principles, constitutional rules, laws, or rules of thumb that say government suppression of speech is worse than other kinds. Crucially important though those have been, it's still true that suppression of speech itself is uniquely bad: Fundamentally, knowledge is not infallible, all problems are caused by lack of knowledge, and speech is the means of correcting all other mistakes. Practically, we find it all too easy to socially suppress good ideas. It's hard to see the true extent of that because it's impossible to see the upside that hasn't happened as a result of that suppression. I hardly need to refer explicitly to some of the specific ideas of the not-distant past about social control that we have since learned, though they were certainly obviously good, were not good. Practically, it's hard to escape the idea that taking seriously the millennia-long stream of historical failures of ideas -- and their replacement with better ones -- does entail treating ideas that are obviously wrong with considerably more flexibility and humility than is tempting. I recommend David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinity to shake up anybody's ideas about this, no matter where you start from.
- ergothus 7y ago
  Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions. Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example. Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading people, and the company (the higher power) does not interfere. Ideal, right? Except that the toxic people drive the others away. White supremacists attack and threaten people of color. Toxic bros attack and threaten women. Misinformation swamps the good information, and only the people that are already experts can tell the difference (and the misleading people will claim to be experts, so...). If your response to above is "threats are illegal", you've not paid attention to how threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough to threaten. Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people. Preventing our "higher authorities" from taking action is reducing the power of collective people to take action. Sometimes collective people are wrong, but sometimes they are right, and that's why I say the topic isn't simple.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > "Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people." While phrased as being benevolent, this is incredibly Orwellian. It is tantamount to saying "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves; they must be protected from hearing these dangerous thoughts and only permitted to hear 'correct' beliefs (which conveniently happen to coincide with my own)." "Beware of those who would deny you access to information for, in their hearts, they dream themselves your masters." Though this quote's origin is in fiction, it turned out to be terrifyingly prescient.

grawprog 7y ago

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It doesn't mean you can't shun the crap out of people saying dumb shit though.

lliamander 7y ago
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech from government regulation, but that does not mean it is free speech. Free speech as a concept absolutely does mean an absence of consequences for, or at least a relative tolerance of, speech that people in society may generally disagree with. It stems from the belief that the truth can sometimes be unpopular, and that in order for us to benefit from the truth we must give people some latitude to be unpopular. The 1st Amendment does not enforce free speech in the social sphere merely because that is not the purview of the Constitution.
- thingification 7y ago
  I'm not sure I'd have put this quite as emphatically as you, but there's a very important point here about the principle of free speech as compared with government suppression of speech. While nodding towards quite real problems involving, let's say for example vaccines, I don't think any of that troubles the principle of free speech in the slightest. Practically applying it is difficult and as error-prone as is anything else, but the principle is enlightening in that task. There does exist a principle of free speech that is not the same thing as the various legal principles, constitutional rules, laws, or rules of thumb that say government suppression of speech is worse than other kinds. Crucially important though those have been, it's still true that suppression of speech itself is uniquely bad: Fundamentally, knowledge is not infallible, all problems are caused by lack of knowledge, and speech is the means of correcting all other mistakes. Practically, we find it all too easy to socially suppress good ideas. It's hard to see the true extent of that because it's impossible to see the upside that hasn't happened as a result of that suppression. I hardly need to refer explicitly to some of the specific ideas of the not-distant past about social control that we have since learned, though they were certainly obviously good, were not good. Practically, it's hard to escape the idea that taking seriously the millennia-long stream of historical failures of ideas -- and their replacement with better ones -- does entail treating ideas that are obviously wrong with considerably more flexibility and humility than is tempting. I recommend David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinity to shake up anybody's ideas about this, no matter where you start from.
ergothus 7y ago
Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions. Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example. Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading people, and the company (the higher power) does not interfere. Ideal, right? Except that the toxic people drive the others away. White supremacists attack and threaten people of color. Toxic bros attack and threaten women. Misinformation swamps the good information, and only the people that are already experts can tell the difference (and the misleading people will claim to be experts, so...). If your response to above is "threats are illegal", you've not paid attention to how threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough to threaten. Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people. Preventing our "higher authorities" from taking action is reducing the power of collective people to take action. Sometimes collective people are wrong, but sometimes they are right, and that's why I say the topic isn't simple.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > "Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people." While phrased as being benevolent, this is incredibly Orwellian. It is tantamount to saying "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves; they must be protected from hearing these dangerous thoughts and only permitted to hear 'correct' beliefs (which conveniently happen to coincide with my own)." "Beware of those who would deny you access to information for, in their hearts, they dream themselves your masters." Though this quote's origin is in fiction, it turned out to be terrifyingly prescient.